Post by Esther Oh on Oct 13, 2016 0:11:02 GMT
United States v. Drayton was a case that involved the fourth amendment constitutional rights. The facts of the case was Christopher Clayton and Clifton Brown were traveling via Greyhound bus when there was a routine stop conducted in Tallahassee, Florida. The officers did not inform the passengers their right to refuse to cooperate. The officer that approached Drayton and Clifton asked if they minded a pat down, which the two agreed to. Both pat-downs resulted in cocaine found on their bodies and thus charged with federal drug crimes. The district court ruled that the police conduct was not coercive, however, the court of appeals noted that passengers do not feel free to disregard the requests of officers especially in absence of the indication that they are feel to not cooperate. So the issue at stake was whether or not officers had to inform passengers their right to not cooperate and consent to searches. The Courts ruled that fourth amendment did not require officers to advise passengers their right to not cooperate and to refuse consent to searches, since the officer did request permission to search. In addition, the consent was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
United States v. Drayton. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved October 12, 2016, from www.oyez.org/cases/2001/01-631
The Israel goes into further depth about the reasoning of the courts. They referred to the Florida v. Bostick case, a similar case where cocaine was found on a person on a bus. In the Bostick case, the Florida Supreme Court suppressed the cocaine which automatically adopted a per se rule that questioning in the cramped confines onboard a bus deprives a person of their freedom of movement and thus constitutes a seizure under the fourth amendment. The Courts reversed the Drayton, however, found that the traditional rule established in the Bostick case, that seizures do not occur when a reasonable person feels free, "to disregard the police and go about his business" is not accurate form of measurement of the coercive effect of a bus encounter. They argue that bus riders understand that their movement will be confined and nonetheless willingly choose to take a bus. Rather, the proper way to measure would be whether or not a reasonable person would feel free refuse to cooperate or otherwise terminate the encounter. The majority opinion assert that officers used a polite voice and did not intimidate with neither movements nor revealing of a weapon. In addition, the aisle was free so that people could exit. Some have argued that the displaying of a badge can be intimidating, however, previous cases such as Florida v. Rodriguez and INS. v. Delgado ruled that presentation of badges and questioning did not constitute a seizure; uniforms are meant to create assurance, not discomfort. The dissenting opinion wrote that universally accepted intrusions (such as on an airplane) have not been applied and justified for ground travel. Moreover, the drive yielded custody to three police officers and respondents had no reason to believe that the driver would return until the police were satisfied. There was an atmosphere of obligatory participation; interdiction was not a consensual exercise which preferred cooperation but would not the lack of it stand in the way.
United States v. Drayton. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved October 12, 2016, from www.oyez.org/cases/2001/01-631
The Israel goes into further depth about the reasoning of the courts. They referred to the Florida v. Bostick case, a similar case where cocaine was found on a person on a bus. In the Bostick case, the Florida Supreme Court suppressed the cocaine which automatically adopted a per se rule that questioning in the cramped confines onboard a bus deprives a person of their freedom of movement and thus constitutes a seizure under the fourth amendment. The Courts reversed the Drayton, however, found that the traditional rule established in the Bostick case, that seizures do not occur when a reasonable person feels free, "to disregard the police and go about his business" is not accurate form of measurement of the coercive effect of a bus encounter. They argue that bus riders understand that their movement will be confined and nonetheless willingly choose to take a bus. Rather, the proper way to measure would be whether or not a reasonable person would feel free refuse to cooperate or otherwise terminate the encounter. The majority opinion assert that officers used a polite voice and did not intimidate with neither movements nor revealing of a weapon. In addition, the aisle was free so that people could exit. Some have argued that the displaying of a badge can be intimidating, however, previous cases such as Florida v. Rodriguez and INS. v. Delgado ruled that presentation of badges and questioning did not constitute a seizure; uniforms are meant to create assurance, not discomfort. The dissenting opinion wrote that universally accepted intrusions (such as on an airplane) have not been applied and justified for ground travel. Moreover, the drive yielded custody to three police officers and respondents had no reason to believe that the driver would return until the police were satisfied. There was an atmosphere of obligatory participation; interdiction was not a consensual exercise which preferred cooperation but would not the lack of it stand in the way.