Page 47 - May June 2020 TPA Journal
P. 47
unconstitutionally seized the passengers whom took place on a stopped interstate bus, an
they questioned. During a scheduled stop, police individual would not feel free to leave the bus or
boarded a Greyhound bus as part of a routine drug terminate the encounter. The Court speculated
and weapons interdiction effort. “The officers that passengers may even feel less pressured to
were dressed in plain clothes and carried cooperate with police officers while on a bus—
concealed weapons and visible badges.” Three compared to an encounter elsewhere—thanks to
officers boarded the bus. One officer kneeled on the presence of other passengers as witnesses.
the driver’s seat and faced the passengers, so he
could monitor them. Another officer stationed Here, the record does not support finding that the
himself in the rear of the bus. A third officer detectives seized Wise when they approached
walked down the aisle, questioning passengers. him, asked to see his identification, and requested
While questioning passengers, the officer avoided his consent to search his luggage. Salient Drayton
blocking the aisle by standing “next to or just factors are present. Detectives Sanders and
behind each passenger with whom [the officer] Sauceda gave the Greyhound passengers no
spoke.” One officer approached two individuals reason to believe that they were required to
who were sitting next to one another. The officer answer the detectives’ questions. Detective
showed the individuals his police badge. Then, Sanders, the primary questioning officer, did not
speaking in a conversational tone, he identified brandish a weapon or make any intimidating
himself and asked to search the passengers’ movements. The officers left the aisle free for
luggage. The passengers consented to the search. passengers to exit. Detective Sanders questioned
After the luggage search, the officer asked to Wise from behind his seat, leaving the aisle free.
search the person of one of the passengers. The Detective Sanders spoke to Wise individually. He
passenger consented. The officer felt hard objects used a conversational tone when talking to Wise.
on the passenger’s upper thighs; he believed these Neither detective suggested to Wise that he was
were drug packages. He then arrested the barred from leaving the bus or could not
passenger. A similar process transpired with the otherwise terminate the encounter.
other passenger.
The factors identified by Wise—that five officers
The Court concluded that the interaction between participated in the interdiction, the proximity to
the officers and the passengers did not amount to the canine drug search, and the fact the detectives
an unconstitutional seizure. The Court reiterated did not inform Wise that he could refuse to answer
the Bostick test for whether a bus passenger was their questions or leave the bus—are not sufficient
unconstitutionally seized: the test “is whether a to tip the scales in his favor. Wise does not explain
reasonable person would feel free to decline the why either of the first two factors would change a
officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the reasonable person’s calculus for whether he could
encounter.” The Court found that “the police did leave the bus or terminate his encounter with the
not seize respondents when they boarded the bus officers. And police are not required to inform
and began questioning passengers” because citizens of their right to refuse to speak with
“[t]here was no application of force, no officers; that is just one factor when evaluating
intimidating movement, no overwhelming show the totality of the circumstances surrounding the
of force, no brandishing of weapons, no blocking interaction.
of exits, no threat, no command, not even an
authoritative tone of voice.” The Court again A reasonable person in Wise’s position would feel
rejected the argument that because the encounter free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise
May/June 2020 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 43
