United States v. Watson

A reliable informant told a postal inspector that Watson (defendant) had stolen credit cards, and during a set-up meeting, the informant signaled Watson had more cards on him. Officers arrested Watson without a warrant, gave Miranda warnings, and asked to search his car; Watson repeatedly consented even after being told anything found could be used against him, and officers found stolen credit cards inside. Watson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrantless arrest was invalid and his consent was involuntary because he was not told he could refuse. The appellate court agreed on both points and reversed his conviction, and the government petitioned for certiorari.