# Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)

## Holding
Consent to search must be **voluntarily given** — the government must prove that consent was freely and voluntarily given, not the product of duress or coercion, express or implied.

## Key Factors for Voluntariness
The Court identified a totality-of-circumstances test:
1. **Knowledge of right to refuse** (relevant but not dispositive)
2. Age, intelligence, education of defendant
3. Length of detention
4. Repeated/prolonged questioning
5. Physical punishment or deprivation
6. Whether Miranda warnings were given
7. **Officer deception or misrepresentation** (critical factor)

## Application to This Case
| Factor | Analysis |
|--------|----------|
| Deception | Detective stated "you're not being arrested" — materially false |
| Knowledge | Defendant not told he could refuse consent |
| Custody | Officers at door late at night, show of authority |
| Miranda | No warnings given before questioning |
| Voluntariness | Consent induced by false assurance — not truly voluntary |

## Subsequent Case Law
- **Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968):** Consent given after officer falsely claims to have a warrant is invalid
- **United States v. Harrison, 213 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2000):** Consent obtained by officer misrepresentation is involuntary
- **State v. Mariano, 322 N.C. 472 (1988):** State bears burden of proving consent was voluntarily given