Page 48 - July August 2020 TPA Journal
P. 48
6 Wise also asserts that the police lacked decision to take the bus; it says nothing about
reasonable suspicion to question him during the whether or not the police conduct at issue was
bus encounter. However, the police did not need coercive.”
any suspicion to question him in the manner they
did. See Drayton, 536 U.S. at 201 (“Even when The Drayton Court evaluated whether police
law enforcement officers have no basis for officers who boarded a Greyhound and questioned
suspecting a particular individual, they may pose certain passengers had unconstitutionally seized
questions, ask for identification, and request the passengers whom they questioned. During a
consent to search luggage—provided they do not scheduled stop, police boarded a Greyhound bus
induce cooperation by coercive means.”) (citation as part of a routine drug and weapons interdiction
omitted). effort. “The officers were dressed in plain clothes
and carried concealed weapons and visible
The respondent in Bostick argued that questioning badges.” Three officers boarded the bus. One
that occurs “in the cramped confines of a bus” is
officer kneeled on the driver’s seat and faced the
“much more intimidating” because “police tower passengers, so he could monitor them. Another
over a seated passenger and there is little room to officer stationed himself in the rear of the bus. A
move around.” Under those conditions, “a
third officer walked down the aisle, questioning
reasonable bus passenger would not have felt free passengers. While questioning passengers, the
to leave” while the police were on board and
officer avoided blocking the aisle by standing
questioning the passenger “because there is “next to or just behind each passenger with whom
nowhere to go on a bus.” The respondent [the officer] spoke.” One officer approached two
successfully persuaded the court below to adopt a
individuals who were sitting next to one another.
per se rule prohibiting police officers from The officer showed the individuals his police
randomly boarding buses and questioning
badge. Then, speaking in a conversational tone,
passengers as a means of performing drug he identified himself and asked to search the
interdictions. The Supreme Court, however, passengers’ luggage. The passengers consented to
disagreed that randomly questioning a bus
the search. After the luggage search, the officer
passenger constitutes a per se unreasonable asked to search the person of one of the
seizure. The proper inquiry for whether a bus
passengers. The passenger consented. The officer
passenger has been seized by police is “whether a felt hard objects on the passenger’s upper thighs;
reasonable person would feel free to decline the he believed these were drug packages. He then
officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the
arrested the passenger. A similar process
encounter.” The Court explained that “no seizure transpired with the other passenger.
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
long as the officers do not convey a message that
the Bostick test for whether a bus passenger was
compliance with their requests is required.” As unconstitutionally seized: the test “is whether a
the Court noted, “the mere fact that [the
reasonable person would feel free to decline the
respondent] did not feel free to leave the bus does officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the
not mean that the police seized him.” The Court encounter.” The Court found that “the police did
understood that the respondent’s movements were
not seize respondents when they boarded the bus
confined because he was on a bus. But it and began questioning passengers” because
concluded that “this was the natural result of his
“[t]here was no application of force, no
44 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal
