Legal Document

536 U.S. 194 UNITED STATESv.DRAYTON et al. No. 01-631. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued April 16, 2002. Decided June 17, CERTIORARI TO THE STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR ELEVENTH CIRCUIT The driver bus on which respondents were traveling allowed three police officers to board as part a routine drug and weapons interdiction effort. One officer knelt driver's seat, facing rear bus, while another stayed in rear, forward. Officer Lang worked his way from back front, speaking with individual passengers he went. To avoid blocking aisle, stood next or just behind each passenger whom spoke. He testified that who declined cooperate chose exit at any time would have been do so without argument; most people are willing cooperate; often leave for cigarette snack board; that, although sometimes informs their right refuse cooperate, did not day question. As approached respondents, seated together, held up badge long enough them identify him an officer. Speaking loud hear, declared looking drugs asked if had bags. When both pointed bag overhead, they minded checked it. Respondent Brown agreed, search revealed no contraband. then whether person. patdown hard objects similar packages thigh areas. was arrested. respondent Drayton, "Mind I check you?" Drayton those found Brown, A further taped cocaine between shorts. Charged federal crimes, moved suppress ground consent searches invalid. In denying motions, District determined conduct coercive respondents' voluntary. Eleventh Circuit reversed remanded based its prior holdings feel free disregard officers' requests absent some positive indication may be refused. Held: Fourth Amendment does require advise searches. Pp. 200-208. (a) Among rulings Florida v. Bostick, 501 U. S. 429, this permits approach random ask questions request searches, provided reasonable person decline otherwise terminate encounter, id., 436. identified "particularly worth noting" factors officer, obviously armed, unholster gun use it threatening way, advised could search. Relying last factor, erroneously adopted what is effect per se rule evidence obtained during suspicionless interdictions buses must suppressed unless 200-203. (b) Applying Bostick's framework case demonstrates seize respondents. gave reason believe required answer questions. brandish weapon make intimidating movements. left aisle exit. spoke one by polite, quiet voice. Nothing said suggest she barred leaving terminating indicate command There ample grounds conclude encounter cooperative confrontational. overwhelming show application force, movement, brandishing weapons, exits, threat, command, even authoritative tone Had occurred street, doubtless constitutional. fact takes place own transform standard questioning into illegal seizure. See supra, 439-440. Indeed, because many fellow present witness conduct, more secure deciding than other circumstances. Lang's display dispositive. See, e. g., Rodriguez, 469 1, 5-6. And, well known presence holstered firearm unlikely active weapon. Hoover's position front also tip scale since nothing intimidate INS Delgado, 466 210, 219. Finally, testimony only few encounter. 216. argues unsuccessfully after arrest mean everyone around has seized. Even arresting 203-206. (c) Respondents subjected unreasonable Where, here, question voluntariness pervades seizure inquiries, respective analyses turn very facts. For foregoing reasons, luggage persons told bag, And when persons, inquired first objected, thus indicating refuse. Moreover, need always inform citizens seeking permission warrantless Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 227. While knowledge taken account, Government establish such sine qua non effective consent. Ibid. Nor presumption invalidity attach citizen consented explicit notification cooperate. Instead, totality circumstances controls, giving extra weight type warning given. Ohio Robinette, 519 33, 39-40. Although give warning, indicates voluntary, reasonable. 206-208. 231 F. 3d 787, remanded. KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C. O'CONNOR, SCALIA, THOMAS, BREYER, JJ., joined. SOUTER, filed dissenting opinion, STEVENS GINSBURG, joined, post, p. 208. Larry D. Thompson argued cause On briefs Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney Chertoff, Deputy Dreeben, Jeffrey A. Lamken, Kathleen Felton. Gwendolyn Spivey, appointment 535 903, With her brief Randolph P. Murrell, Steven L. Seliger, T. Green, Jacqueline G. Cooper.* JUSTICE KENNEDY Court. 1 understand 429 (1991). This requires us determine these encounters 2 * February 4, 1999, Christopher Clifton Jr., Greyhound en route Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Detroit, Michigan. made scheduled stop Tallahassee, Florida. disembark refueled cleaned. reboarded, tickets complete paperwork inside terminal. left, members Tallahassee Police Department dressed plain clothes carried concealed visible badges. 3 Once onboard Hoover seat faced bus. observe ensure safety two obstructing Officers Blackburn went remained stationed there, toward about travel plans sought match overhead racks. 4 According testimony, argument. experience, however, Some go far commend efforts travel. recall five six instances previous year searched. It common board. informed question, not. 5 window. leaned over Drayton's shoulder. face 12-to-18 inches away Drayton's, voice hear: 6 "I'm Investigator Department. We're conducting [sic], attempting deter being transported Do you bags bus?" App. 55. 7 Both single green rack. asked, "Do mind it?," responded, "Go ahead." Id., 56. handed check. contained 8 noticed wearing heavy jackets baggy pants despite warm weather. experience traffickers clothing conceal narcotics. possession. Brown: your person?" answered, "Sure," cooperated leaning pulling cell phone out pocket, opening jacket. 61. reached across patted down Brown's jacket pockets, including waist area, sides, upper thighs. areas, detected occasions. arrested handcuffed Brown. escorted 9 65. responded lifting hands eight legs. conducted thighs duct-taped plastic bundles powder several pairs boxer possessed containing 483 grams cocaine. 295 10 charged conspiring distribute cocaine, violation 21 §§ 841(a)(1) 846, possessing intent it, § 841(a)(1). They arguing Following hearing testified, States Northern denied motions suppress. clothes, badges manner, general announcement entire address anyone menacing noted block exit, stated "obvious [respondents] can get leave, ahead them." 132. concluded: "[E]verything took Mr. suggests cooperative. coercive, there confrontational it." 11 Appeals instructions grant 787 (2000). court disposition compelled decisions Washington, 151 1354 (1998), Guapi, 144 1393 (1998). Those cases "some refused." 1357. 12 We granted certiorari. 534 1074 (2002). we conclude, seized voluntary; reverse. II 13 Law enforcement violate Amendment's prohibition seizures merely approaching individuals street public places putting listen. Royer, 460 491, 497 (1983) (plurality opinion); see 523, n. (REHNQUIST, dissenting); 5-6 (1984) (per curiam) (holding interactions airports "the sort consensual encounter[s] implicat[e] interest"). law basis suspecting particular individual, pose questions, identification, — induce cooperation means. S., 434-435 (citations omitted). If 14 addressed occasion specific buses. requested passenger's luggage. resulting suitcase. doing due cramped confines on-board act deprive freedom movement constitute under Amendment. 15 reversed. Bostick clear rules inappropriate context. proper inquiry necessitates consideration "all surrounding encounter." 439. traditional rule, states occur "to business," California Hodari D., 499 621, 628 (1991), accurate measure want off risk will depart before opportunity reboard. 434-436. rider's movements confined sense, but natural result choosing take bus; says coercive. "is rejected argument drugs. test, explained, objective "presupposes innocent person." 437-438. 16 light limited record, refrained occurred. 437. remand. 432. First, obvious remove pouch way. Second, 17 upon latter aboard described "[t]he glaring difference" Guapi lack request.... Providing [this] simple ... perhaps efficient method compliance Constitution." 3d, 1395. listed contributed coerciveness encounter: (1) disembarked stop; (2) explained form (3) wore uniform; (4) questioned path 1396. 18 After decision decided Washington instant case. following facts: reboarded instead passengers; careful obstruct passengers' means egress 19 disavowed requirement, element all cases. 1357 ("It seems genuinely remain absolutely simply say so. Without notice case, felt able agents' requests"); 790 (noting "[t]his controlled by" dismissing factual differences irrelevant). Under cases, appears absence erred adopting approach. 20 facts boarded began passengers. "everything cooperative" "was [or] confrontational" beyond 22 much displayed badge. 5-6, claim defendant airport, showed badge, Likewise, 212-213 (1984), Immigration Naturalization Service (INS) workers factory neither nor colleagues uniform visibly should little analysis. wear uniforms assurance, discomfort. Much same sidearms. That armed public. contribute 23 favor. passengers, indeed clear. though uniformed near exits factory. noted: "The agents posed threat detention workers, mere possibility buildings resulted apprehension detained meaningful way." 24 refused 70, 81. importance, coercion know participation enhances them. "While respond request, so, respond, hardly eliminates nature response." 25 contends consensual, claim; event fails. police. anything, put consequences continuing answering polite manner 26 now search, i. e., involuntary. these, where above suggest, indicated Rather, contrary, ("Mind you?"), agreed. 27 terms suggestion 39-40 (1996); 227 (1973). factor government consent." Court's rules, attaches repeated control, warning. Schneckloth, supra; 28 society law, concept agreement given dignity own. full accord reinforces wishes reliance understanding. exchange place, dispels inferences coercion. 29 alternative whether, Terry frisk Ohio, 392 (1968), evident together observed pair reboarding together; heavy, ill-suited day's temperatures; claimed responsibility piece carry-on carrying believed narcotics, suspicion well. presented us. prevent relying citizen's paradox, puzzling officials courts alike, say, holding ineffectual point compelling detain him. taking custody, entitled continue proceed cooperation. 30 judgment reversed, proceedings consistent opinion. 31 ordered. Notes: Daniel J. Popeo Richard Samp Legal Foundation amici curiae urging reversal. Leon Friedman Joshua Dratel National Association Criminal Defense Lawyers amicus affirmance. James Manak, Wayne W. Schmidt, Weintraub, Bernard Farber, Carl Milazzo Americans Effective Enforcement, Inc., curiae. 32 GINSBURG join, dissenting. 33 Anyone travels air today submits condition boarding aircraft. universally accepted intrusions necessary hedge against risks nowadays, small children understand. commonplace precautions not, far, justified transportation, conditions placed getting trains therefore unreality explanation "enhanc[e] Ante, 205. assessments underlying conclusion favor convincing. 34 issue review police's examination amounted Amendment.1 did, plainly invalid product 507-508 opinion) ("[T]he tainted illegality ineffective justify search"); 509 (Powell, concurring); (Brennan, concurring result). 35 established determining constitutional sense. seizure, resolved test considering circumstances: "free encounter," applied criterion, ignore 437 (quoting Michigan Chesternut, 486 567, 569 (1988)). 36 Before applying perspective different sets perfect example supports colorable goes pedestrian asks 497; dissenting). pedestrian, more, presumably support conclusion. Now consider officers, stands side open sidewalk, third addressing foot face. scene narrow alley. barebones facts, occurred, qualification atmosphere differed significantly examples. final instance every understood, considerable discomfort, Justice Stewart "threatening officers," Mendenhall, 446 544, 554 (1980) (opinion Stewart, J.). carry legitimate authority exercise power immediate check, attention brought bear civilian imbalance unmistakable. this, rising Stewart's "threatening" level overbear normal person's ability freely, commands formalities detention. understanding is, sign My relevant significance follows. 37 vehicle cleaned refueled. 104. returned, driver, kept himself, absence. 77-78. uniform, themselves himself door others forward, backing up. 47-48. necessarily close range; wide, 18.2 quarters rack, top seats. window straight, 55, nearest addressed, 57. During exchanges, looked down, look asking quietly. prefaced body identifying name investigator "conducting interdiction" saying, "`We like bus?'" 82. 38 Thus, reasons unexplained, entitling yielded custody travelers whose apparently superseded control compartment, keeping surveillance occupants, working forward back. accosted extremely half speaker. None converse enquiry. Instead interdiction," course "would cooperation." inference "interdiction" exercise, whatever circumstances; prefer "cooperation" let stand contrary day, requested, return trip resume until satisfied. set obligatory introduction. Later ..." naturally understood began. 39 imagine either lose police, choice altogether. No uncomprehending one. here one, precaution. 47. three, called conscious watching, him, cover, became unruly, perhaps, forthcoming. situation alley, civilians quarters, unable move effectively, expected. am prepared interrogation pass no, surely certain shout. 40 true 81, cast light. knowing elsewhere request; maybe happened (as them), 81-82. fairly possible differently recalling 210 precedent. majority force immigration posted leading workplace. Whether reasoned viewed here. Delgado considered order granting summary consequence construe record issues favorably Service. 214; 221 (STEVENS, concurring). emphasized "th[e] surveys initiated, employees ordinary business, operating machinery performing job assignments." 218. seemingly pinned-in customary events stopped flat. going nowhere, suppose tend business ready 41 event, less concerned parse apply reasonably end saying ignoring thereafter. my view tells me cannot saw, respectfully dissent. proceeds resolve heels enquiry, within review. Accord, Reply Brief 20, (stating case; place"). purported "whether `uncoerced legally voluntary,'" 788 (2000), inFlorida 791, 6. reach untainted were, satisfy 218 (1973), focuses subjective understanding," 230, characteristics accused [in addition to] details interrogation," 226. figures Lodging (available Clerk file). dispute accuracy

Classification Label: 0