| United States v. Drayton | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 16, 2002 Decided June 17, 2002 | |
| Full case name | UNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Christopher DRAYTON and Clifton Brown, Jr. |
| Citations | 536 U.S. 194 (more) 122 S. Ct. 2105; 153 L. Ed. 2d 242; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4420; 70 U.S.L.W. 4552; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5321; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 6707; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 367 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | United States v. Drayton, 231 F.3d 787 (11th Cir. 2000); cert. granted, 534 U.S. 1074 (2002). |
| Holding | |
| Police officers who questioned and searched passengers on a bus did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the passengers consented to the search and the passengers were free to exit the bus | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer |
| Dissent | Souter, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified the applicability of Fourth Amendment protections to searches and seizures that occur on buses, as well as the function of consent during searches by law enforcement.[1] During a scheduled stop in Tallahassee, Florida, police officers boarded a Greyhound bus as part of a drug interdiction effort and interviewed passengers.[2] After talking to two of the passengers and asking if they could "check [their] person", officers discovered the two passengers had taped several packages of cocaine to their legs.[3] At trial, the passengers argued that officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures because the police engaged in coercive behavior and never informed them that their participation in the drug interdiction efforts was voluntary.[3]
Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy held officers need not personally advise passengers of their right to refuse consent to a search on a bus.[4] Furthermore, Justice Kennedy ruled that the search was not unreasonable because passengers were free to leave the bus and the individuals who were searched provided voluntary consent.[5] Although some commentators have praised the Court's ruling for encouraging citizens "to stand up for their rights",[6] others have criticized it for failing to reflect the realities of "real-life confrontations occurring on the street" between citizens and law enforcement.[7]
- ^ Matthew Phillips, Effective Warnings Before Consent Searches: Practical, Necessary, and Desirable, 45 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1185, 1190–91 (2008).
- ^ United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 197-99 (2002).
- ^ a b Drayton, 536 U.S. at 199.
- ^ Drayton, 536 U.S. at 206–07.
- ^ Drayton, 536 U.S. at 204–07.
- ^ The Fourth Amendment and Antidilution: Confronting the Overlooked Function of the Consent Search Doctrine, 119 Harv. L. Rev. 2187, 2203 (2006)
- ^ Ric Simmons, Not "Voluntary" but Still Reasonable: A New Paradigm for Understanding the Consent Searches Doctrine, 80 Ind. L.J. 773, 773 (2005).
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search