Bumper v. North Carolina

Supreme Court of the United States · 1968 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawFourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureConsent SearchesJury SelectionFourth Amendmentconsent searchsearch warrant

Facts

Two days after the alleged offense, four law enforcement officers went to the house where the petitioner lived with his grandmother, Mrs. Leath. At the door, an officer told Mrs. Leath, "I have a search warrant to search your house," and she responded, "Go ahead," after which the officers entered and found a .22-caliber rifle in the kitchen. At the suppression hearing, the prosecution expressly declined to rely on a warrant and instead argued that Mrs. Leath had consented to the search. The rifle was later introduced at trial over the petitioner's objection.

Issue

Whether a search may be justified on the basis of consent when the alleged consent was given only after officers asserted that they possessed a search warrant. Also, whether the petitioner's conviction had to be reversed because jurors opposed to capital punishment were excluded for cause even though the jury recommended life imprisonment.

Rule

When the prosecution relies on consent to justify a search, it bears the burden of proving that consent was freely and voluntarily given. That burden is not met by showing mere acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority, and there can be no valid consent when consent is given only after an officer asserts authority to search under a warrant.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Tulsa, Officer Reed knocked on Naomi Carter’s door and said, "I have a warrant to search this house." Naomi replied, "All right, come in," and stepped aside. At the suppression hearing, the prosecutor declined to offer any warrant and argued only that Naomi consented.

Should the search be upheld on a consent theory?

Explanation. When the prosecution relies on consent, it bears the burden of proving consent was freely and voluntarily given. That burden is not met by showing submission after an officer claims authority under a warrant, because the claim conveys that the occupant has no right to resist. Since the State chose not to justify the search by the warrant and relied only on consent, the search cannot be upheld on that basis.