Page 41 - May June 2020 TPA Journal

grant Defendant–Appellee Morris Wise’s motion That day, five Conroe Police Department officers
to suppress. were present at the Greyhound bus stop. Four
Wise was traveling on a Greyhound bus when officers were dressed in plainclothes—civilian
police officers Performed a bus interdiction at a clothes that do not include any markings of being
Conroe, Texas bus stop. Officers boarded the a police officer—and concealed their weapons and
Greyhound, and Wise aroused an officer’s badges. The remaining officer, a uniformed canine
suspicion. The officer questioned Wise about his handler, was accompanied by a trained narcotics-
luggage. Two pieces of luggage were stored in the detection canine.
luggage rack above Wise’s head. Wise claimed
only one piece of luggage as his own; no one 1 The district court did not make extensive
claimed the second piece. The officers removed findings of fact in either its suppression order or
the unclaimed article from the bus, and they opinion on suppression. The facts come primarily
determined that the luggage contained cocaine. from the suppression hearing testimony of two
The officers asked Wise to leave the bus. He Conroe Police Department officers who
complied. Off the bus, officers asked Wise to questioned and subsequently arrested Wise.
empty his pockets. He complied. Wise gave the
officers an identification card with the name That same day, Morris Wise traveled on
“Morris Wise” on it. He also gave the officers a Greyhound Bus #6408, which departed Houston,
lanyard with keys; one key connected Wise to the Texas, bound for Chicago, Illinois. At around 8:00
backpack. The officers then arrested Wise. a.m., the bus made a scheduled stop at the Conroe
station.
Wise moved to suppress the evidence that officers
found in his pockets. Following a suppression After the bus stopped, the driver disembarked.
hearing, the district court suppressed all evidence Conroe officers approached the driver and asked
obtained during the bus search. The district court for his consent to search the bus’s passenger cabin.
found that the officers had established an The driver gave his consent. Detectives Randy
unconstitutional checkpoint stop. The court also Sanders and Juan Sauceda, veterans of the Conroe
concluded that the bus driver did not voluntarily Police Department with narcotics interdiction
consent to the bus search. experience, boarded the bus. The two were dressed
in plainclothes. The remaining three officers
On September 15, 2011, Conroe Police waited near the bus. Detective Sauceda walked
Department officers stationed themselves at a toward the back of the bus, while Detective
Greyhound bus stop located in Conroe, Texas, in Sanders remained at the front. The officers did not
order to perform bus interdictions. Bus block the aisle.
interdictions typically involve law enforcement
officers boarding a bus to speak with suspicious- Detective Sanders noticed Wise pretending to
looking passengers. The officers aim to discover sleep, which he found suspicious. In his
individuals transporting narcotics, weapons, or experience, criminals on buses often pretend to
other contraband. If the officers suspect criminal sleep to avoid police contact. Detective Sanders
activity, they ask a passenger for his identification walked past Wise and turned around. Detective
and boarding pass; they may also ask whether the Sanders looked back at Wise, only to see that Wise
passenger has any luggage with him. During the had turned to look at him. Detective Sanders
interdiction, passengers may leave the bus. They walked back toward Wise. The detective noticed
may also refuse to speak with officers. that Wise’s eyes were closed—but his eyelids were

May/June 2020 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 37