Page 50 - July August 2020 TPA Journal
P. 50
respective analyses turn on very similar facts.” request.
As noted, the police did not unreasonably seize
The record does not support finding that the
Wise. The record provides no basis for finding
that he did not voluntarily answer the officers’ police performed an unconstitutional Terry pat
down of Wise. Terry stops represent a narrow
questions and consent to their requests. Thus, we
conclude that Wise’s interactions with the officers exception to the Fourth Amendment’s general
were consensual. prohibition against warrantless searches and
seizures.
The police did not need Wise’s consent to search
the backpack. Wise forfeited any reasonable “Under Terry, if a law enforcement officer can
point to specific and articulable facts that lead him
expectation of privacy in the backpack when he
voluntarily disclaimed ownership. Wise to reasonably suspect that a particular person is
acknowledges that he “expressly disclaimed committing, or is about to commit, a crime, the
officer may briefly detain—that is, ‘seize’—the
ownership or recognition of [the backpack].” An
individual who voluntarily disclaims ownership of person to investigate.” Officers may “draw on
their own experience and specialized training to
a piece of luggage is considered to have
abandoned that luggage. See United States v. make inferences from and deductions about the
Roman, 849 F.2d 920, 922 (5th Cir. 1988). The cumulative information available to them that
‘might well elude an untrained person.’”
individual forfeits any expectation of privacy in
that luggage and lacks standing to challenge any Determining the reasonableness of the officer’s
suspicion requires assessing the “totality of the
unlawful search or seizure of the luggage. Thus,
after disclaiming ownership, Wise no longer had circumstances” prior to the stop.
any reasonable expectation of privacy in the
Consensual encounters between the police and
backpack, so he could not challenge the
civilians, however, do not implicate the Fourth
subsequent search.
Amendment. We determined in Williams that
when police officers asked a Greyhound
Wise argues that the police performed an
unconstitutional Terry pat down on him. He passenger to disembark and accompany them to
contends that when the police asked him to leave the bus terminal’s baggage handling area for the
purpose of answering questions—and the
the bus and come with them, the police had
detained him. He argues that the officers’ request passenger voluntarily complied—a Terry stop did
not occur.
for him to empty his pockets constituted a pat
down. Additionally, Wise asserts that the
Here, the police asked Wise to speak with them
detectives’ decision to take his keys was outside
off the bus. The police did not indicate that his
the permissible scope of a Terry stop.
compliance was required. Once off the bus, the
The Government contends that Wise voluntarily police did not restrain Wise. They also did not tell
him that he must obey their requests. The police
disembarked from the bus as requested by the
officers. The officers did not order Wise off the asked Wise to empty his pockets, and he
bus. Moreover, Wise emptied his pockets as a complied. He also complied with the police
officers’ requests to show them his identification
consequence of the detectives’ requests; the
detectives did not frisk Wise or force him to empty card and keys. Wise has not explained why this
interaction was anything but a consensual
his pockets. Thus, the Government concludes,
Wise voluntarily emptied his pockets. Similarly, encounter.
Wise gave his keys to the detectives upon their
Even if Wise could characterize the interaction as
46 www.texaspoliceassociation.com • (512) 458-3140 Texas Police Journal
