Final answer:
The statement regarding SCOTUS ruling that officers are not required to always inform detainees that they are free to go for consent to search to be voluntary is true. This is linked to the procedural safeguards established by the Miranda v. Arizona ruling which focuses on custodial interrogation rights, not on voluntary consent for searches outside of custody.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement is true, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that it would be unrealistic to always require officers to inform detainees that they are free to go before a consent to search may be deemed voluntary. This relates to the understanding that while the Miranda v. Arizona case established the requirement for suspects to be read their rights prior to interrogation, the specific caveat about informing detainees that they are free to leave is not a mandatory precondition for all searches. The crux of the matter is the voluntariness of consent in situations where a person consents to a search without a warrant. It's important to understand that Miranda rights do include being informed of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, but the immediacy of informing someone of their freedom to leave is not strictly mandated for consent to be considered valid.
The cases leading up to Miranda distinctly highlighted the importance of procedural safeguards for suspects during custodial interrogations. In cases such as Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart, suspects were questioned without the notification of their rights. The Miranda ruling consequently mandated suspects be informed of their right to silence and right to an attorney to prevent self-incrimination and ensure the fairness of police interrogations. However, this does not extend to all interactions with law enforcement, particularly when an individual is not under custodial interrogation and gives consent to a search.