Page 50 - January February 2020 TPJ

Wise argues that the Conroe Police Department cooperation by coercive means.”) (citation omitted).
unreasonably seized him in violation of the Fourth
Amendment when they questioned him on the The respondent in Bostick argued that questioning that
Greyhound. He asserts that he felt restrained by police occurs “in the cramped confines of a bus” is “much
officers while on the bus. more intimidating” because “police tower over a seated
Wise identifies a number of factors that contributed to passenger and there is little room to move around.”
feeling like he could not leave the bus or end the Under those conditions, “a reasonable bus passenger
encounter, including: (1) the presence of officers inside would not have felt free to leave” while the police were
and outside the bus; (2) the presence of a police canine on board and questioning the passenger “because there
and marked police car; (3) the fact that police were is nowhere to go on a bus.” The respondent successfully
conducting a canine drug search near the location they persuaded the court below to adopt a per se rule
questioned him; and (4) the officers’ failure to advise prohibiting police officers from randomly boarding
him that he could refuse to answer their questions or buses and questioning passengers as a means of
comply with their requests. performing drug interdictions. The Supreme Court,
The Government argues that Wise’s interaction with the however, disagreed that randomly questioning a bus
police was a consensual encounter—not a seizure that passenger constitutes a per se unreasonable seizure. The
could implicate the Fourth Amendment. The proper inquiry for whether a bus passenger has been
Government contests Wise’s assertion that the factors seized by police is “whether a reasonable person would
mentioned above would make a reasonable person feel feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise
that he could not decline to speak with the police terminate the encounter.” The Court explained that “no
officers or otherwise end the encounter. The seizure occurs when police ask questions of an
Government directs us to Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. individual, ask to examine the individual’s
429 (1991), and United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 identification, and request consent to search his or her
(2002). Both of these cases shed light on when luggage—so long as the officers do not convey a
questioning a bus passenger may constitute an message that compliance with their requests is
unconstitutional seizure. required.” As the Court noted, “the mere fact that [the
The Supreme Court in Bostick evaluated a situation respondent] did not feel free to leave the bus does not
where uniformed police officers boarded a bus, mean that the police seized him.” The Court
questioned a defendant (absent suspicion), and then understood that the respondent’s movements were
sought the defendant’s consent to search his luggage. confined because he was on a bus. But it concluded that
The Court began its analysis by clarifying that “a “this was the natural result of his decision to take the
seizure does not occur simply because a police officer bus; it says nothing about whether or not the police
approaches an individual and asks a few questions.” conduct at issue was coercive.”
Instead, an encounter is “consensual” so long as the The Drayton Court evaluated whether police officers
civilian would feel free to either terminate the encounter who boarded a Greyhound and questioned certain
or disregard the questioning. The police do not need passengers had unconstitutionally seized the passengers
reasonable suspicion to approach someone for whom they questioned. During a scheduled stop,
questioning. And “[t]he encounter will not trigger police boarded a Greyhound bus as part of a routine
Fourth Amendment scrutiny unless it loses its drug and weapons interdiction effort. “The officers
consensual nature.” were dressed in plain clothes and carried concealed
weapons and visible badges.” Three officers boarded
6 Wise also asserts that the police lacked reasonable the bus. One officer kneeled on the driver’s seat and
suspicion to question him during the bus encounter. faced the passengers, so he could monitor them.
However, the police did not need any suspicion to Another officer stationed himself in the rear of the bus.
question him in the manner they did. See Drayton, 536 A third officer walked down the aisle, questioning
U.S. at 201 (“Even when law enforcement officers have passengers. While questioning passengers, the officer
no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may avoided blocking the aisle by standing “next to or just
pose questions, ask for identification, and request behind each passenger with whom [the officer] spoke.”
consent to search luggage—provided they do not induce One officer approached two individuals who were sitting

46 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • 866-997-8282 Texas Police Journal