Posted on 06/17/2002 8:52:41 AM PDT by Pern
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police who want to look for drugs or evidence of other crimes do not have to first inform public transportation passengers of their legal rights.
The ruling gives police guidance on how to approach and search passengers, a case with renewed interest as officers seek out possible terrorists on public transportation.
Justices rejected arguments that passengers, confined to small spaces, might feel coerced.
The court ruled 6-3 that officers in Tallahassee, Fla., were within their rights as they questioned and searched two men aboard a Greyhound bus in 1999.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the passengers did not have to be told that they didn't have to cooperate.
Three officers boarded the bus, bound from Fort Lauderdale to Detroit. One officer introduced himself to Christopher Drayton and Clifton Brown, and told them he was looking for illegal drugs and weapons.
He asked to pat down the men's baggy clothing. The men agreed, and officers felt hard objects on the men's legs that turned out to be packets of cocaine.
"It is beyond question that had this encounter occurred on the street, it would be constitutional. The fact that an encounter takes place on a bus does not on its own transform standard police questioning of citizens into an illegal seizure," Kennedy wrote for the court.
Drayton and Brown were convicted and sentenced on drug charges.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the cocaine should not have been admitted as evidence, because the officers failed to tell the men they were not required to cooperate. That court said the encounter violated the Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures.
Monday's ruling overturns that decision.
In a dissent, Justice David H. Souter said that three officers "pinned-in" passengers on the stopped bus.
"The situation is like the one in the alley, with civilians in close quarters unable to move effectively, being told their cooperation is expected," wrote Souter, who was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
He said because of terrorist concerns, airplane passengers know they must submit to searches.
"The commonplace precautions of air travel have not, thus far, been justified for ground transportation," Souter wrote.
"It is beyond question that had this encounter occurred on the street, it would be constitutional.
Not without probable cause. Wait...they don't even need that anymore. Nevermind.
I suppose that if the two men would have said "No!", the cops would have just said "Alrighty", left the bus and never bothered the two men again.
Exactly the point of my post. The defense basically argued that the two men didn't know they could refuse the search, although they could have. If they had known, and refused the search, it wouldn't have matterd. The cops would have probably just placed them under arrest for God knows what.
I find it hard to agree with you. Consider:
The perps DID agree to the search, thinking they'd get away with it;
They WERE in possession of illegal drugs, and were caught red-panted, as it were.
Or do you think it's automatically un-Constitutional when a thug gets thrown in the slammer?
If the ACLU (of whom I am normally not a big fan) ran an information campaign telling people what their rights to refuse a search really are, they would be doing our society a big favor.
LOL! Now THAT's funny! Try that in the real world and see what happens.
What a stupid comment. As if terrorists won't know that they can just say No.
They've already got plenty -- of the Constitution edition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.