Which case confirmed that individuals have the right to refuse consent to a police search?

The correct answer is grounded in the principles established by Florida v. Jimeno, where the Supreme Court addressed the issue of consent searches. In this case, the Court recognized that an individual has the right to refuse consent to a search, emphasizing that consent must be given voluntarily and cannot be assumed.

In the context of police searches, the case highlighted the importance of an individual's autonomy and constitutional rights regarding personal property. The ruling clarified that while individuals can consent to searches under certain circumstances, they also maintain the right to deny consent without facing any legal consequences from the police. This ruling forms a key aspect of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, reinforcing the idea that individuals control access to their belongings.

On the other hand, other cases listed deal with different aspects of search and seizure law or do not directly address the right to refuse consent. Michigan v. Tyler focuses on the exigent circumstances that allow warrantless searches, Miranda v. Arizona addresses the rights of individuals during custodial interrogations, and Mapp v. Ohio dealt with the exclusionary rule related to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. None of these cases specifically reinforced the principle of an individual's right to refuse consent in the same direct manner as Florida v. Jim