Consent:
Respondent was brought to trial on a charge of possessing a check with intent to defraud. Respondent moved to suppress the introduction of certain material as evidence against him on the ground that the material had been acquired through a warrantless search and seizure that were unconstitutional. The court of appeals vacated an order that denied the petition for habeas corpus relief on grounds that there was insufficient proof that respondent knew that he had a right to refuse to give his consent to the search. The Court disagreed that proof of knowledge of the right to refuse consent was a necessary prerequisite to demonstrating "voluntary" consent. Rather, the Court held that individual consent could only be ascertained by analyzing all of the circumstances. The traditional definition of voluntariness, which the Court adhered to, did not require proof of knowledge of a right to refuse as the sine qua non of an effective consent to a search. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973).
The case names are links to the cases in Google Scholar which is a free source. Clicking on the case name will take you directly to the case in the current window or another option is right clicking and choosing to open in a new tab or window.
