Us V Drayton

[Guest DrTom]

The Supreme Court has ruled that police officers do NOT have to advise people of their right to refuse a warantless search. The incident that brought the case about occurred when two men, on a bus from Florida to Detroit, were searched at a routine stop. The officer asked their permission for the searches each step of the way; both were found to be carrying drugs and were arrested.

 

This is murky water. On the one hand, if the government deems it necessary to search everyone boarding a bus, plane, or boat, they should go ahead and implement it. As long as the search is not unreasonable, it's perfectly legal. On the other hand, it's difficult to see how this doesn't conflict with Miranda, whereby the police are required to inform you of your rights during an arrest. Why would a search, especially a warantless one, be any different?

 

This is from the Court's opinion:

 

Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable seizures merely by approaching individuals on the street or in other public places and putting questions to them if they are willing to listen. See, e.g., Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 497 (1983) (plurality opinion); see id., at 523, n. 3 (REHNQUIST, J., dissenting); Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U. S. 1, 5–6 (1984) (per curiam) (holding that such interactions in airports are “the sort of consensual encounter that implicat[e] no Fourth Amendment interest”). Even when law enforcement officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may pose questions, ask for identification, and request consent to search luggage— provided they do not induce cooperation by coercive means. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S., at 434–435 (citations omitted). If a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter, then he or she has not been seized.

The Court has addressed on a previous occasion the specific question of drug interdiction efforts on buses. In Bostick, two police officers requested a bus passenger’s consent to a search of his luggage. The passenger agreed, and the resulting search revealed cocaine in his suitcase. The Florida Supreme Court suppressed the cocaine. In doing so it adopted a per se rule that due to the cramped confines onboard a bus the act of questioning would de-prive a person of his or her freedom of movement and so constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

This Court reversed. Bostick first made it clear that for the most part per se rules are inappropriate in the Fourth Amendment context. The proper inquiry necessitates a consideration of “all the circumstances surrounding the encounter.” Id., at 439. The Court noted next that the traditional rule, which states that a seizure does not occur so long as a reasonable person would feel free “to disregard the police and go about his business,” California v. Hodari D., 499 U. S. 621, 628 (1991), is not an accurate measure of the coercive effect of a bus encounter. A pas-senger may not want to get off a bus if there is a risk it will depart before the opportunity to reboard. Bostick, 501 U. S., at 434–436. A bus rider’s movements are confined in this sense, but this is the natural result of choosing to take the bus; it says nothing about whether the police conduct is coercive. Id., at 436. The proper inquiry “is whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.” Ibid. Finally, the Court rejected Bostick’s argument that he must have been seized because no reasonable person would consent to a search of luggage containing drugs. The reasonable person test, the Court explained, is objec-tive and “presupposes an innocent person.” Id., at 437– 438.

 

The full opinion, with greater details about the case, can be found at This Court page. (Note: Acrobat reader required)

[Guest Ripper]

It all goes to people should know and understand their rights. I have refused a search of my backpack a couple of times while I was in college. The policemen looked at me like I was guilty, but they couldn't do anything. I was clean and I didn't have to to prove to somebody I wasn't carrying drugs(or what ever they were implying I had) If you don't know you rights, you are subject to having them violated.

[Guest J*ingus]

It probably won't change anything for me personally, since lots of cops and judges around here seem to simply not care if they follow procedure or not, and 99% of the time they get away with it. I had a friend who went in for a traffic ticket. The officer didn't even show up, and the judge still refused to hear my friend's evidence in his defense and found him guilty. I know another guy who was hauled downtown in a police car for simply skating on the sidewalk in a rich neighborhood, which is NOT a crime. They didn't charge him with anything, just eventually let him go.

 

Of course this conflicts with Miranda, I think that's pretty clear. And yes, people should know and understand their rights, but the laws in this country are SO ridiculously complicated, both state and federal, that you can't possibly expect anybody to know it all, even a lawyer. Ignorance of the law may not be a valid defense in the eyes of the court, but ignorance of the law is something that 100% of the population has, in some way or another.

[Guest Ripper]

But common sense should tell you that if they are asking, you can say no. If they say "We are going to check your bag now!" that is messed up and I can see how someone would get confused. If the say "Sir, can we check your bag" they apparent can't just do it and you should know you can say yes or no.

 

Plus, everyone should use their god given american right and they will be ok...watch courtroom dramas. A good diet of the Practice and Forensic Files and you will have enough knowledge to outsmart the cops.