Case Citator › Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
412 U.S. 218
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
251 of 251
Citing cases (total)
11,775
Treatment dates
1992–1993
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is limited: all 251 flagged citations have been read, with the 2 confirmed treatments listed below. The Tenth Circuit in United States v. Bloom questioned whether later Supreme Court decisions focused on objective reasonableness left a person's subjective characteristics relevant to consent voluntariness except when known to police.
More on how this was screened

United States v. Zapata then declined to extend Schneckloth's relevant subjective characteristics beyond attributes such as age, education, and intelligence to a culturally derived attitude toward police. The other reviewed opinions applied Schneckloth's totality-of-the-circumstances standard, followed its own boundaries, reported treatment of other authorities, or rejected adverse arguments. No state court among the citing opinions expressly rejected Schneckloth under a state constitution.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

11,775 later cases cite Schneckloth v. Bustamonte; 251 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Schneckloth v. Bustamonte?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Tenth Circuit declined to extend Schneckloth's relevant subjective characteristics beyond attributes such as age, education, and intelligence to a person's culturally derived attitude toward police.

    United States v. Zapata · Tenth Circuit · filed

    But even assuming some subjective characteristics are relevant to the validity of Mr. Zapata’s consent, we reject the notion that his attitude toward police, from whatever source, can constitute such a relevant ... characteristic. While such attributes as the age, gender, education, and intelligence of the accused have been recognized as relevant, see United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 558, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 1879, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980); Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2047, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); United States v. Chalan, 812 F.2d 1302, 1307 (10th Cir.1987), an intangible characteristic such as attitude toward authority is inherently unverifiable and unquantifiable.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Questioned

  • The Tenth Circuit questioned whether Schneckloth's consideration of subjective characteristics remained valid after later Supreme Court decisions focused on objective reasonableness.

    United States v. Bloom · Tenth Circuit · filed

    A person’s subjective characteristics may be relevant to the voluntariness of the person's consent. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 226, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2047, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973) ... However, recent Supreme Court decisions cast doubt on this issue. ... The Supreme Court’s recent focus on the "reasonableness” of the law enforcement officer’s conduct suggests that the subjective characteristics of the defendant may no longer be relevant to the voluntariness of the consent other than to the extent that the characteristics are known to the officer.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Schneckloth v. Bustamonte and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace