Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to inform a motorist at the end of a traffic stop that they are free to go before seeking permission to search the motorist's car.

While driving on a stretch of Interstate 70 north of Dayton, Ohio, Robert Robinette was stopped for speeding.

The Court reasoned it would be impractical to require the police to explain to a suspect in any detail his right to refuse consent to a search.

Ginsburg emphasized that the Court's holding only construed the Fourth Amendment, and that in light of the particular circumstances present in Ohio—where stops similar to Robinette's were frequently used as a pretext to search for drugs—the Ohio Supreme Court was free to adopt the first-tell-then-ask rule it articulated as part of Ohio law, without imposing that requirement on the rest of the states.

For this reason, Justice Stevens noted he would have affirmed the judgment of the Ohio Supreme Court.