|
US v. Drayton
(2002)
Author: Helper
Facts: Drayton and Brown
were on a bus when 3 officers boarded at a gas stop. Two
officers went down the isle asking people to identify their bags
and one stayed at the bus’ entrance. When they reached
Ds, they asked to check their bags and Ds said yes, then the
officer asked to check their person, which both Ds said
yes. Both Ds were found to be carrying cocaine.
Issue: The fourth amendment
permits police officers to approach bus passengers at random and
ask questions and request consent to searches provided a
reasonable person would understand that he or she is free to
refuse, but MUST the officer advise the passengers of their right
not to cooperate?
Holding: No
Reasoning: First, the
officers did not seize the Ds according to the Bostick
rule. Second, the search was reasonable b/c the Ds
consented to it and knew it was occurring. Third, the court
rejects in specific terms the suggestion that police officers
MUST always inform citizens of their right to refuse when seeking
permission to conduct a warrantless search.
Dissent: Here, the Ds did
not reasonably feel as though they could deny the officers access
to their bags and persons. Not only did the officers take
over the bus by walking up the isle and placing an officer at the
front of the bus, but by asking every passenger about their
bags. The reasonable inference is that the officers would
prefer cooperation, but won’t let lack of it stand in their
way. However, the dissent is not prepared to say that no
bus search will pass without giving passengers a proper warning
as to their rights, this one does not pass and is in violation of
the 4th.
|
