Page 47 - July August 2020 TPA Journal
P. 47
had no legitimate expectation of privacy entitling police officers while on the bus.
them to the protection of the [F]ourth
[A]mendment.” United States v. Greer, 939 F.2d Wise identifies a number of factors that
1076, 1093 (5th Cir. 1991), op. reinstated in part contributed to feeling like he could not leave the
on reh’g, 968 F.2d 433 (5th Cir. 1992) (citing bus or end the encounter, including: (1) the
Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 148 (1978)). We presence of officers inside and outside the bus; (2)
have recognized that a commercial bus passenger the presence of a police canine and marked police
had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his car; (3) the fact that police were conducting a
luggage. However, in that same case we clarified canine drug search near the location they
that passengers have “no reasonable expectation questioned him; and (4) the officers’ failure to
of privacy in the exterior luggage compartment of advise him that he could refuse to answer their
a commercial bus, and therefore no standing to questions or comply with their requests.
contest the actual inspection of that compartment, The Government argues that Wise’s interaction
to which the bus operator consented.” with the police was a consensual encounter—not
a seizure that could implicate the Fourth
Passengers traveling on commercial buses Amendment. The Government contests Wise’s
resemble automobile passengers who lack any
assertion that the factors mentioned above would
property or possessory interest in the automobile. make a reasonable person feel that he could not
Like automobile passengers, bus passengers
decline to speak with the police officers or
cannot direct the bus’s route, nor can they exclude otherwise end the encounter. The Government
other passengers. Bus passengers have no directs us to Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429
possessory interest in a bus’s passenger cabin—
(1991), and United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S.
except with regard to their personal luggage. Any 194 (2002). Both of these cases shed light on
reasonable expectation of privacy extends only to
when questioning a bus passenger may constitute
that luggage. Passengers have no reasonable an unconstitutional seizure.
expectation of privacy with respect to the bus’s
cabin. Therefore, Wise lacks standing to challenge
The Supreme Court in Bostick evaluated a
the driver’s decision to consent to the search of situation where uniformed police officers boarded
the bus’s interior cabin.
a bus, questioned a defendant (absent suspicion),
and then sought the defendant’s consent to search
We may affirm the district court’s ruling on the
his luggage.
motion to suppress “based on any rationale
supported by the record.” Wise identifies three
The Court began its analysis by clarifying that “a
potential avenues for affirming the suppression
seizure does not occur simply because a police
ruling: (1) he was unreasonably seized in
officer approaches an individual and asks a few
violation of the Fourth Amendment when the
questions.” Instead, an encounter is “consensual”
police questioned him on the bus; (2) he did not
so long as the civilian would feel free to either
voluntarily consent to the search of his backpack;
terminate the encounter or disregard the
and (3) the officers lacked suspicion to justify a
questioning. The police do not need reasonable
Terry pat down. We disagree.
suspicion to approach someone for questioning.
Wise argues that the Conroe Police Department And “[t]he encounter will not trigger Fourth
unreasonably seized him in violation of the Fourth Amendment scrutiny unless it loses its consensual
Amendment when they questioned him on the nature.”
Greyhound. He asserts that he felt restrained by
July/August 2020 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 43
