Page 52 - SEPT OCTOBER 2019_PJ - Final_Neat
P. 52
questions.” Instead, an encounter is “consensual” long as the officers do not convey a message that
so long as the civilian would feel free to either compliance with their requests is required.” As
terminate the encounter or disregard the the Court noted, “the mere fact that [the
questioning. The police do not need reasonable respondent] did not feel free to leave the bus does
suspicion to approach someone for questioning. not mean that the police seized him.” The Court
And “[t]he encounter will not trigger Fourth understood that the respondent’s movements were
Amendment scrutiny unless it loses its consensual confined because he was on a bus. But it
nature.” concluded that “this was the natural result of his
decision to take the bus; it says nothing about
6 Wise also asserts that the police lacked
whether or not the police conduct at issue was
reasonable suspicion to question him during the
coercive.”
bus encounter. However, the police did not need
any suspicion to question him in the manner they The Drayton Court evaluated whether police
did. See Drayton, 536 U.S. at 201 (“Even when officers who boarded a Greyhound and questioned
law enforcement officers have no basis for certain passengers had unconstitutionally seized
suspecting a particular individual, they may pose the passengers whom they questioned. During a
questions, ask for identification, and request scheduled stop, police boarded a Greyhound bus
consent to search luggage—provided they do not as part of a routine drug and weapons interdiction
induce cooperation by coercive means.”) (citation effort. “The officers were dressed in plain clothes
omitted). and carried concealed weapons and visible
badges.” Three officers boarded the bus. One
The respondent in Bostick argued that questioning
officer kneeled on the driver’s seat and faced the
that occurs “in the cramped confines of a bus” is
passengers, so he could monitor them. Another
“much more intimidating” because “police tower
officer stationed himself in the rear of the bus. A
over a seated passenger and there is little room to
third officer walked down the aisle, questioning
move around.” Under those conditions, “a
passengers. While questioning passengers, the
reasonable bus passenger would not have felt free
officer avoided blocking the aisle by standing
to leave” while the police were on board and
“next to or just behind each passenger with whom
questioning the passenger “because there is
[the officer] spoke.” One officer approached two
nowhere to go on a bus.” The respondent
individuals who were sitting next to one another.
successfully persuaded the court below to adopt a
The officer showed the individuals his police
per se rule prohibiting police officers from
badge. Then, speaking in a conversational tone,
randomly boarding buses and questioning
he identified himself and asked to search the
passengers as a means of performing drug
passengers’ luggage. The passengers consented to
interdictions. The Supreme Court, however,
the search. After the luggage search, the officer
disagreed that randomly questioning a bus
asked to search the person of one of the
passenger constitutes a per se unreasonable
passengers. The passenger consented. The officer
seizure. The proper inquiry for whether a bus
felt hard objects on the passenger’s upper thighs;
passenger has been seized by police is “whether a
he believed these were drug packages. He then
reasonable person would feel free to decline the
arrested the passenger. A similar process
officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the
transpired with the other passenger.
encounter.” The Court explained that “no seizure
occurs when police ask questions of an individual, The Court concluded that the interaction between
ask to examine the individual‘s identification, and the officers and the passengers did not amount to
request consent to search his or her luggage—so an unconstitutional seizure. The Court reiterated
48 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal
