California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Byrd, 113 Cal.Rptr. 777, 38 Cal.App.3d 941 (Cal. App. 1974):
As the trial court found, the evidence shows that defendant Byrd signed the conditions of release and acknowledged that he understood them and agreed to abide by them. The evidence further shows that all of the conditions of release were explained to defendant Byrd at or shortly after the time of his release. 2 The question posed by trial court below is whether the record must affirmatively show that the C.R.C. outpatient was specifically informed of his particular Fourth Amendment rights 'so that he could form an intelligent knowledge of the rights and also make an intelligent waiver' of the rights. In essence, the court below felt that something more than mere consent was needed for a waiver of Fourth Amendment rights; that something more was needed than a mere explanation that one must submit to a search of his or her person or property. Implicit in the court's question was whether an explanation of Fourth Amendment rights analogous to the admonition required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, is required before a C.R.C. outpatient can consent to warrantless searches.
Page 781
In Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 248, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854, the court held that there is no requirement that one's Fourth Amendment rights be explained prior to obtaining consent to search. 3 The court distinguished the Miranda situation involving custodial [38 Cal.App.3d 947] interrogation from the Fourth Amendment situation. The court noted at pages 241--242, 93 S.Ct. at page 2055 that: 'There is a vast difference between those rights that protect a fair criminal trial and the rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment. Nothing, either in the purposes behind requiring a 'knowing' and 'intelligent' waiver of trial rights, or in the practical application of such a requirement suggests that it ought to be extended to the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.