Ohio v. Robinette
| Ohio v. Robinette | |
|---|---|
| Argued October 8, 1996 Decided November 18, 1996 | |
| Full case name | State of Ohio, Petitioner v. Robert D. Robinette |
| Citations | 519 U.S. 33 (more) 117 S. Ct. 417; 136 L. Ed. 2d 347; 1996 U.S. LEXIS 6971; 65 U.S.L.W. 4013; 148 A.L.R. Fed. 739; 96 Cal. Daily Op. Service 8278; 96 Daily Journal DAR 13761; 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 200 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Conviction reversed by the Ohio Supreme Court, 653 N.E.2d 695 (Ohio 1995); certiorari granted, 516 U.S. 1157 (1996). |
| Holding | |
| The Fourth Amendment does not require the police to inform a motorist during a traffic stop that they are "free to go" before asking questions unrelated to the purpose of the stop. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg |
| Dissent | Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to inform a motorist at the end of a traffic stop that they are free to go before seeking permission to search the motorist's car.