UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON 536 U.S. 194 (2002) CASE BRIEF

UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON

536 U.S. 194 (2002)

NATURE OF THE CASE: The Fourth Amendment permits police officers to approach bus passengers at random to ask questions and to request their consent to searches, provided a reasonable person would understand that he or she is free to refuse. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429 (1991). This case looks to further clarify the Bostick ruling by whether police officers must inform passengers of their rights to refuse to consent to such searches.

FACTS: Christopher Drayton and Clifton Brown, Jr., (Ds) were traveling on a Greyhound bus. The bus made a scheduled stop in Tallahassee, Florida. The passengers were required to disembark so the bus could be refueled and cleaned. As the passengers reboarded, the driver checked their tickets and then left to complete paperwork inside the terminal. The driver allowed three members of the Tallahassee Police Department to board the bus as part of a routine drug and weapons interdiction effort. The officers were dressed in plain clothes and carried concealed weapons and visible badges. Passengers were asked about their travel plans and matched with luggage in the overhead racks. To avoid blocking the aisle, the questioning officer stood next to or just behind each passenger with whom he spoke. The officer approached D from the rear and held up his badge long enough for Ds to identify him as a police officer. With his face 12-to-18 inches away he spoke in a voice just loud enough for Ds to hear. The bags of each D were checked with consent. The officer then noticed that both Ds were wearing heavy jackets and baggy pants despite the warm weather. Drug traffickers often use baggy clothing to conceal weapons or narcotics. The officer then asked if he could pat each D down and they both consented. Both were arrested and drugs were discovered on them. They were charged and both moved to suppress the cocaine, arguing that the consent to the pat-down search was invalid. The District Court determined that the police conduct was not coercive and respondents' consent to the search was voluntary. The District Court pointed to the fact that the officers were dressed in plain clothes, did not brandish their badges in an authoritative manner, did not make a general announcement to the entire bus, and did not address anyone in a menacing tone of voice. It noted that the officers did not block the aisle or the exit, and stated that it was 'obvious that [Ds] can get up and leave, as can the people ahead of them.' The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to grant respondents' motions to suppress. The court held that this disposition was compelled because bus passengers do not feel free to disregard police officers' requests to search absent 'some positive indication that consent could have been refused.'

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner