Against Consent Searches

Schneckloth v. Bustamonte is an obvious parent's order as it meets the excuse that another police officer can bring it up to search for citizens. It is alleging that individuals can abandon their fourth correction verbally against unjust search and seizure unless the exemption is forced by government officials. The court then decided that the suspects need not prove these rights before giving up these rights. Secretary Marshall wrote as follows. "It is difficult to understand how decisions made without knowledge of existing alternatives are considered a choice." This is the most elegant blow to the free profit. This precedent is c

There are few people who disagree with all consent searches. 90% of unauthorized searches are done with consent, and they are important execution tools. However, it is clear that it is effective only when these searches actually agree. If constitutional rights are threatened, fax licensing is not sufficient. The Supreme Court himself admits this and Schneckcloth says to consider the "overall situation" in deciding whether to accept free consultation. Unfortunately, this test can not protect citizens from searches that are nominally mutually agreed.

First, in this paper, we evaluate the rationality of consensus search at the macro level and examine the government's interests on consensus search and the effect on individual privacy. This analysis shows that within the scope of the macro review of rationality the court exaggerates the extent to which the court consulted to explore the interests of the government and underestimate its privacy. Secondly, in order to make the investigations agreed between the parties more reasonable at the macro level, this paper should not only evaluate the voluntary nature of the consent research, but also evaluate the validity of the consent itself I believe that. With this micro examination of rationality, the court can decide whether the final investigation is in fact a reasonable relationship with the need for government participation.

Many people agree that searches do not benefit the government at all, without being recognized without agreeing to the principle of search. At the same time, the universality of this approach has brought a great deal of cost to privacy. In this paper, we reexamine the exception of the search using the requirement of "micro rationality" so that the principle of consent can better reflect the rationality of the fourth revision. In accordance with this requirement, the court not only examines the voluntary nature of the consent form which is the basis of the investigation, but also reviews the reasons for the consent of the government and the extent of necessary consent.