Page 55 - May June 2019 TPA Journal
P. 55
made, he was successful only about 10% of the police officers Performed a bus interdiction at a
time. Seen in this light, the district court could Conroe, Texas bus stop. Officers boarded the
reasonably have discounted Agent Perez’s Greyhound, and Wise aroused an officer’s
experience as it related to forming reasonable suspicion. The officer questioned Wise about his
suspicion. Likewise, we conclude this factor bears luggage. Two pieces of luggage were stored in the
little weight in the analysis. luggage rack above Wise’s head. Wise claimed
only one piece of luggage as his own; no one
7. Examining the Factors as a “Laminated Total” claimed the second piece. The officers removed
the unclaimed article from the bus, and they
At this point, we are left with the following facts
determined that the luggage contained cocaine.
to be viewed from Agent Perez’s limited
The officers asked Wise to leave the bus. He
experience in detecting illegal activity: Freeman’s
complied. Off the bus, officers asked Wise to
truck, a type commonly found in the area, was
empty his pockets. He complied. Wise gave the
seen less than 50 miles from the border, it turned
officers an identification card with the name
right onto a road known for smuggling, and his
“Morris Wise” on it. He also gave the officers a
truck was registered to an individual. We conclude
lanyard with keys; one key connected Wise to the
that these facts, without more, are not enough to
backpack. The officers then arrested Wise.
support reasonable suspicion, especially when
viewed through the eyes of an agent with minimal Wise moved to suppress the evidence that officers
experience detecting illegal activity. Courts that found in his pockets. Following a suppression
have found reasonable suspicion, even in cases in hearing, the district court suppressed all evidence
close proximity to the border, have generally obtained during the bus search. The district court
required more. found that the officers had established an
unconstitutional checkpoint stop. The court also
Because the district court’s conclusion that the concluded that the bus driver did not voluntarily
officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the consent to the bus search.
roving patrol stop was supported by the evidence,
we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of On September 15, 2011, Conroe Police
Freeman’s motion to suppress. Department officers stationed themselves at a
Greyhound bus stop located in Conroe, Texas, in
U.S. v. Freeman, Fifth Circuit, No. 17-40739, Jan. order to perform bus interdictions. Bus
25th, 2019.
interdictions typically involve law enforcement
**************************************** officers boarding a bus to speak with suspicious-
**************************** looking passengers. The officers aim to discover
individuals transporting narcotics, weapons, or
other contraband. If the officers suspect criminal
activity, they ask a passenger for his identification
SEARCH & SEIZURE – AFFIRMATIVE and boarding pass; they may also ask whether the
LINK – CHECKPOINTS – STOP & FRISK. passenger has any luggage with him. During the
interdiction, passengers may leave the bus. They
Bus stop search.
may also refuse to speak with officers.
We REVERSE the district court’s decision to That day, five Conroe Police Department officers
grant Defendant–Appellee Morris Wise’s motion were present at the Greyhound bus stop. Four
to suppress.
officers were dressed in plainclothes—civilian
clothes that do not include any markings of being
Wise was traveling on a Greyhound bus when
May/June 2019 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 51
