Page 54 - SEPT OCTOBER 2019_PJ - Final_Neat
P. 54
status; 2) the presence of coercive police The Government contends that Wise voluntarily
procedures; 3) the extent and level of the disembarked from the bus as requested by the
defendant’s cooperation with the police; 4) the officers. The officers did not order Wise off the
defendant’s awareness of his right to refuse bus. Moreover, Wise emptied his pockets as a
consent; 5) the defendant’s education and consequence of the detectives’ requests; the
intelligence; and 6) the defendant’s belief that no detectives did not frisk Wise or force him to empty
incriminating evidence will be found. his pockets. Thus, the Government concludes,
Wise voluntarily emptied his pockets. Similarly,
However, when “the question of voluntariness
Wise gave his keys to the detectives upon their
pervades both the search and seizure inquiries, the
request.
respective analyses turn on very similar facts.” As
noted, the police did not unreasonably seize Wise. The record does not support finding that the police
The record provides no basis for finding that he performed an unconstitutional Terry pat down of
did not voluntarily answer the officers’ questions Wise. Terry stops represent a narrow exception to
and consent to their requests. Thus, we conclude the Fourth Amendment’s general prohibition
that Wise’s interactions with the officers were against warrantless searches and seizures.
consensual.
“Under Terry, if a law enforcement officer can
The police did not need Wise’s consent to search point to specific and articulable facts that lead him
the backpack. Wise forfeited any reasonable to reasonably suspect that a particular person is
expectation of privacy in the backpack when he committing, or is about to commit, a crime, the
voluntarily disclaimed ownership. Wise officer may briefly detain—that is, ‘seize’—the
acknowledges that he “expressly disclaimed person to investigate.” Officers may “draw on
ownership or recognition of [the backpack].” An their own experience and specialized training to
individual who voluntarily disclaims ownership of make inferences from and deductions about the
a piece of luggage is considered to have cumulative information available to them that
abandoned that luggage. See United States v. ‘might well elude an untrained person.’”
Roman, 849 F.2d 920, 922 (5th Cir. 1988). The Determining the reasonableness of the officer’s
individual forfeits any expectation of privacy in suspicion requires assessing the “totality of the
that luggage and lacks standing to challenge any circumstances” prior to the stop.
unlawful search or seizure of the luggage. Thus,
Consensual encounters between the police and
after disclaiming ownership, Wise no longer had
civilians, however, do not implicate the Fourth
any reasonable expectation of privacy in the
Amendment. We determined in Williams that
backpack, so he could not challenge the
when police officers asked a Greyhound passenger
subsequent search.
to disembark and accompany them to the bus
Wise argues that the police performed an terminal’s baggage handling area for the purpose
unconstitutional Terry pat down on him. He of answering questions—and the passenger
contends that when the police asked him to leave voluntarily complied—a Terry stop did not occur.
the bus and come with them, the police had
Here, the police asked Wise to speak with them off
detained him. He argues that the officers’ request
the bus. The police did not indicate that his
for him to empty his pockets constituted a pat
compliance was required. Once off the bus, the
down. Additionally, Wise asserts that the
police did not restrain Wise. They also did not tell
detectives’ decision to take his keys was outside
him that he must obey their requests. The police
the permissible scope of a Terry stop.
50 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal
