Ohio v. Robinette

519 U.S. 33 (1996)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was clocked at 69 miles per hour in a 45 zone. D was stopped by a Deputy. D gave his driver's license, and the Deputy ran a computer check which indicated that D had no previous violations. The Deputy then asked D to step out of his car, turned on his mounted video camera, issued a verbal warning to D, and returned his license. The Deputy then asked, 'One question before you get gone: [A]re you carrying any illegal contraband in your car? Any weapons of any kind, drugs, anything like that?' D answered 'no.' The Deputy asked if he could search the car. D consented. A small amount of marijuana and, in a film container, and a pill which was later determined to be methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) were found. D was then arrested and charged with knowing possession of a controlled substance, MDMA. D sought to suppress this evidence. He then pleaded 'no contest,' and was found guilty. The Ohio Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the search resulted from an unlawful detention. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed: 'The right, guaranteed by the federal and Ohio Constitutions, to be secure in one's person and property requires that citizens stopped for traffic offenses be clearly informed by the detaining officer when they are free to go after a valid detention, before an officer attempts to engage in a consensual interrogation. Any attempt at consensual interrogation must be preceded by the phrase `Now you legally are free to go' or by words of similar import.' Ohio (P) appealed.