cannabisnews.com: Supreme Court Rules Police Can Search Passengers





Supreme Court Rules Police Can Search Passengers
Posted by CN Staff on June 17, 2002 at 11:13:24 PT
By Gina Holland, Associated Press Writer
Source: Associated Press
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. The case focused on the difference between police questioning on a bus and in a less confining environment, such as a sidewalk. 
In both instances, police would need permission or probable cause to search someone, but the justices rejected arguments that passengers, confined to small spaces, might feel coerced to go along. 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. The Bush administration invoked the war on terrorism in asking the Supreme Court to get involved in the case, but the court majority did not specifically refer to that argument. Kennedy did note that public transportation riders understand the risks from potential criminals in their midst. "Bus passengers answer officers' questions and otherwise cooperate not because of coercion, but because the passengers know that their participation enhances their own safety and the safety of those around them," Kennedy wrote. 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. On the street, the person being stopped could simply refuse to cooperate and keep walking. Unless police had good reason to pursue the person further, they would be free to go. Drayton and Brown argued that they did not have the same option while seated on the bus. They 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. Donna Shea, legal director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said police will use the ruling as justification for aggressive questioning. "I think police will continue intimidating passengers," she said. The ruling "gives bus passengers a lesser expectation of privacy. I think that's unconstitutional." Complete Title: Supreme Court Rules Police Can Search Public Transportation Passengers Without First Informing Them of Legal RightsThe case is United States v. Drayton, 01-631. Newshawk: Nicholas Thimmesch II - http://www.norml.org/Source: Associated PressAuthor: Gina Holland, Associated Press WriterPublished: Monday, June 17, 2002 Copyright: 2002 Associated Press Related Articles:A Bus Ride Tests Limits of Police Searches http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12542.shtmlHigh Court Considers Drug Searches http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread12541.shtmlJust Say No - Reason Magazinehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11730.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by kaptinemo on June 18, 2002 at 05:42:56 PT:
The return of "I know my rights!"
 Those of us old enough to know what I mean have reason to smile, because the very circumstances, which prompted those words to be spoken with great heat during the 1960’s, are once again coming about.In the late 1960's, one of the major networks had produced a TV special in which short vignettes about average people's encounters with 'normal' (namely, attempts to trick them out of their rights) police procedures were played out. As you might imagine, most people didn't know they had the right to refuse a warrantless search. This prompted a backlash against such police behavior, culminating in a greater awareness of Constitutional rights amongst the general populace. Which, in turn, led to greater restraints upon the police; they were far more likely to meet up with someone who saw that program or heard about it, learned of their rights to refuse warrantless searches, and thus was not going to play into their hands.Well, folks, this latest (idiotic) decision from the less-than-Supreme Court may create another such backlash For, as Dan has pointed out, the onus of knowing one's rights has once again fallen upon the individual...but the individual can be educated. And it is up to us to do so.A civil populace jealously guarding their rights must perforce become a politically active populace, because the threats to their freedoms come not from some bearded, towel-sporting foreigner but the very same old f-s who made this decision. The enemy of real concern is not standing outside the city banging at the gates; we can handle such riff-raff. Nope, the real enemy's got his hand on the wheel of the 'ship of State'. And will happily strip you of your rights to 'protect' them for you.The Supreme's and their ideological brethren may well look upon this latest decision as a major mistake; forcing the Average American to learn of how his or her Constitutional rights have been abridged on such a casual basis will be a major two edged sword. Ignorant people are easily controlled...and they've just provided a huge incentive to eliminate that ignorance. Someone should have reminded them about the myth of Pandora. They have just made the same mistake...again.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by releafer on June 17, 2002 at 22:58:35 PT
Hardly PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
How can something PRIVATELY OWNED become public. Should all limo's have to be searched.Greyhound last time I looked was a Private Carrier subject to transportation laws and the only way the public rides is by buying a ticket?A Library that is a public LIBRARY you don't pay to use.
It is just as sematical for me to say that Greyhound provides security from terrorists so anyone on the bus and should not be searched but driven safely to there destination.THE SERVICE THEY PAID FOR !!!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by dddd on June 17, 2002 at 18:21:40 PT
Twisted Logic of the Supreme Cohort
...Rights?
"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. "
...Notice,,instead of looking at it from the standpoint of the "rights",of citizens,,they are seeing it as "rights" of law enforcement..This is significant,and frightening....next,,we see:
""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.      On the street, the person being stopped could simply refuse to cooperate and keep walking. Unless police had good reason to pursue the person further, they would be free to go. "
.....OK,,in other words,,if the cops stop me,and want to search me,I can "simply refuse and keep walking"...what a fucking joke!...."Unless police had good reason to pursue the person further, they would be free to go. "..... But, there's one small problem with this..As soon as you refuse to cooperate,,the cops have "probable cause" to suspect you of hiding something you dont want them to see.....The "war on terror",,is more like "The War OF Terror"......the Fourth Ammendment is almost completly meaningless now....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Dan B on June 17, 2002 at 13:49:09 PT:
There's A Way Around This
I propose that we, as cannabis activists, conduct a massive educational program aimed at our public transportation system. That is, we now have a great reason to provide everyone using public transportation with literature explaining their rights and privileges as American citizens (that is, we still have the right to refuse a search, and the cops should respect that, given that it is their job to do so). The literature itself can be small and simple, much like the NORML Foundation's "Freedom Card." The point is that if someone uses public transportation, this information should be provided, and the only people who will provide it is very likely us. Here's the great part: we can supply additonal information regarding the barbarity of the drug war, and they can't stop us from giving that out either. Neither can they stop us from going door-to-door disseminating information about the drug war and constitutional rights when using public transportation per another decision, handed down yesterday, that Americans have the right to go door to door soliciting for religious, political, or community service purposes.Let's try to use this as an opportunity. It's a stupid decision, I know (what's the problem with informing citizens of their rights?). This decision allows cops to deliberately prey upon the ignorant. Let's counter that by making sure that nobody entering public transportation is ignorant of his or her rights.Of course, financing and coordinating such an effort might be a bit tricky . . .Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by st1r_dude on June 17, 2002 at 12:06:00 PT
seeg hiel (sp)
NFM...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Hope on June 17, 2002 at 11:44:20 PT
 The Supreme Court ruled Monday 
that police who want to look for drugs may approach the vehicle goose stepping.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Rev0x on June 17, 2002 at 11:14:58 PT:
Yeah, OK
UNITED NATIONS -- Conservative U.S. Christian organizations have joined forces with Islamic governments to halt the expansion of sexual and political protections and rights for gays, women and children at United Nations conferences.The new alliance, which coalesced during the past year, has received a major boost from the Bush administration, which appointed antiabortion activists to key positions on U.S. delegations to U.N. conferences on global economic and social policy.But it has been largely galvanized by conservative Christians who have set aside their doctrinal differences, cemented ties with the Vatican and cultivated fresh links with a powerful bloc of more than 50 moderate and hard-line Islamic governments, including Sudan, Libya, Iraq and Iran."We look at them as allies, not necessarily as friends," said Austin Ruse, founder and president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, a New York-based organization that promotes conservative values at U.N. social conferences. "We have realized that without countries like Sudan, abortion would have been recognized as a universal human right in a U.N. document."More at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61275-2002Jun16.html
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment