Advertisement

American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 197–215 | Cite as

Bus interdiction efforts by the police:United States v. Drayton

  • Thomas W. Hughes
Article

Abstract

The Supreme Court recently addressed the constitutionality of police interdiction efforts when conducting bus sweeps. The Court held that law enforcement officers are not required by the Fourth Amendment to “advise bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches” (U.S. v. Drayton, 2002, p. 2107). The decision may have implications for how the judicial branch will balance the needs of law enforcement against citizen freedoms in the post-September 11th era. This article explores the surrounding legal issues, the case opinion, and policy implications of this case.

Keywords

Cocaine Police Officer Criminal Procedure Fourth Amendment Valid Consent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amicus Curiae Brief. (2002). Washington Legal Foundation and the Allied Education Foundation. Retrieved January 31, 2002, from http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/index.2001.htmlGoogle Scholar
  2. Biskupic, J. (2002, June 19). Justices ok searches on mass transit.USA Today, p. A3.Google Scholar
  3. Callahan, D. J. (2001). The long distance remand:Florida v. Bostick and the re-awakened bus search battlefront in the war on drugs.William and Mary Law Review, 43, 365–416.Google Scholar
  4. Coyle, M. (2002, May 5). A tale of two justices.National Law Journal. Retrieved August 5, 2002, from http://www.nlj.com/scotus/080502scotus-lede.shtmlGoogle Scholar
  5. del Carmen, R. (1998).Criminal procedure (4th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. Gearan, A. (2002, January 7). Supreme Court to hear case clarifying police power during bus searches.The Legal Intelligencer, 4, p. 4.Google Scholar
  6. Gifis, S. (1984).Barron’s law dictionary. New York: Barron’s.Google Scholar
  7. Goldstein, H. (1977).Policing a free society. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  8. Greenhouse, L. (2002). Police may search bus riders, minus the speech. Retrieved June 18, 2002, from http://query.www.nytimes.com/search/article-page.html?res=980DE7 DE1F3CF93BA25755COA9649C8B63.Google Scholar
  9. Holland, G. (2002, January 14). Supreme Court to review public transportation searches.Connecticut Law Tribune, 28(2), p. 10.Google Scholar
  10. Israel, J., & LaFave, W. (1993).Criminal procedure: Constitutional limitations in a nut shell. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. LaFave, W., Israel, J., & King, N. (2000).Criminal procedure (3rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Lane, C. (2002, June 18). Police search of bus upheld.Washington Post, p. A1.Google Scholar
  13. Lectric Law Library. (2000). Probable cause. Retrieved January 31, 2003, from http:// www.lectlaw.com/def2/pO89.htmGoogle Scholar
  14. Liptack, A. (2002). Changing the standard. Retrieved May 31, 2002, from http://query. nytimes.com/search/article-page.html?res=9501E1DD173AF932A05756COA9649C8 B63.Google Scholar
  15. Lundman, R. J. (1980).Police and policing: An introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  16. Richey, W. (2002, June 18). Court upholds police tactics in searching bus riders. Retrieved June 19, 2002, from http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0618/p09s01-usju.htmGoogle Scholar
  17. Mintz, J. (2002, June 11). A1 Qaeda suspect enters legal limbo: Few precedents available for cases, experts say.Washington Post, p. A10.Google Scholar
  18. Mitchell, A. (2002). Note:United States v. Drayton: Supreme Court upholds standards for police conduct during bus searches.The American University Law Review, 51, 1065–78.Google Scholar
  19. U.S. v.Drayton. (2002). Oral argument transcript. Washington, DC: Anderson Reporting Company.Google Scholar
  20. Zalman, M. (2002).Criminal procedure (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Cases Cited

  1. Brinegar v. U.S., 388 U.S. 160 (1949).Google Scholar
  2. Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968).Google Scholar
  3. California v. Hodari D, 499 U.S. 621 (1991).Google Scholar
  4. Florida v.Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991).Google Scholar
  5. Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1 (1984).Google Scholar
  6. INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984).Google Scholar
  7. Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988).Google Scholar
  8. Ohio v.Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996).Google Scholar
  9. Schneckloth v. Busamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973).Google Scholar
  10. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).Google Scholar
  11. U.S. v. Broomfield, 210 F. 3d 1270 (10th Cir., 2000).Google Scholar
  12. U.S. v. Cooper, 43 F. 3d 140 (5th Cir., 1995).Google Scholar
  13. U.S. v. Drayton, 231 F.3d 787 (11th Cir., 2000).Google Scholar
  14. U.S. v. Drayton, 122 S.Ct. 2105 (2002).Google Scholar
  15. U.S. v. Guapi, 144, F.3d 1393 (11th Cir.,1998).Google Scholar
  16. U.S. v. Flowers, 912 F.2d 707 (1990).Google Scholar
  17. U.S. v. Kim, 27 F. 3d 947 (3rd Cir., 1994).Google Scholar
  18. U.S. v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980).Google Scholar
  19. U.S.v. Washington, 151 F.3d 1354 (11th Cir., 1998).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Justice AdministrationUniversity of LouisvilleLouisville

Personalised recommendations