The 4^thAmendment to the US Constitution prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" which generally requires that the police obtain a warrant issued on a showing of probable cause unless there are extraordinary circumstance, e.g., a crime is in progress.One exception to the warrant requirement is the 'automobile exception,'but this exception did not eliminate the requirement that a search of an automobile requires evidence showing probable cause.However, the US Supreme Court ruled that even when there is no legal basis for conducting a search, officers are free to ask consent:if the person who controls the property 'freely and voluntarily' consents to a search, the search is valid.(Solan & Tiersma, 2005, pp.36-37).

What was the criteria the Courts set for judges to determine if the will of the suspect had been overbourne (and the consent was not voluntary)?Discuss.

What were the circumstances of this particular case and what did the Supreme Court decide? What are the implications of this decision?How do Solan& Tiersmadisagree with the Court's opinion that 'neither linguistics nor epistemology will provide a ready definition" of consent?How does linguistics play a role in interactions in which the police or law enforcement official elicit 'consent' from a citizen?