501 U.S. 429 (1991)
Broward County Sheriff’s Department officers routinely board buses at scheduled stops and ask passengers for permission to search their luggage as part of drug interdiction efforts.1 In this case two officers boarded a bus bound from Miami to Atlanta during a stopover in Fort Lauderdale.2 Eyeing the passengers without articulable suspicion they selected Terrance Bostick and asked to inspect his ticket and identification which matched and were immediately returned.3
The officers explained they were narcotics agents and requested Bostick’s consent to search his luggage.4 Cocaine was discovered in the second bag.5 The Florida Supreme Court noted a conflict in the evidence about whether Bostick consented and whether he was informed of his right to refuse consent.6 However, it recorded that the trial court resolved any conflict in favor of the state.7 One officer carried a zipper pouch containing a pistol but the gun was never removed, pointed, or used in a threatening manner.8 Bostick was specifically advised he had the right to refuse consent.9
Bostick was arrested and charged with trafficking in cocaine.10 He moved to suppress the cocaine on Fourth Amendment grounds.11 The trial court denied the motion without making factual findings.12 Bostick then entered a guilty plea while reserving the right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion.13
The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed and certified a question to the Florida Supreme Court.14 That court rephrased the question and held that an impermissible seizure results when police mount a drug search on buses during scheduled stops and question boarded passengers without articulable reasons thereby obtaining consent to search luggage.15 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Florida Supreme Court’s per se rule.16
Whether a police encounter on a bus of the type described necessarily constitutes a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?17
A seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment does not occur simply because a police officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions.18 So long as a reasonable person would feel free to disregard the police and go about his business, the encounter is consensual and no reasonable suspicion is required. The crucial test is whether, taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business or to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.19 The location of the encounter is one factor but not the only one, and a per se rule based solely on the bus setting is inconsistent with Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.20
No. The officers boarded the bus during a scheduled stop, eyed the passengers without articulable suspicion, selected Bostick, asked to inspect his ticket and identification which matched and were returned, explained they were narcotics agents, and requested consent to search his luggage while specifically advising him of his right to refuse consent.21 One officer carried a zipper pouch containing a pistol but never removed, pointed, or used it in a threatening manner.22 These facts as resolved by the trial court in the state's favor do not convey a message that compliance was required.23 Bostick's freedom of movement was restricted by his status as a passenger on a bus scheduled to depart rather than by any police conduct, making the free-to-leave analysis inapplicable under the totality of the circumstances.24
The Florida Supreme Court's per se rule that such bus encounters necessarily constitute seizures is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings to evaluate the seizure question under the correct totality of the circumstances standard.25
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Blackmun And Justice Stevens
Justice Marshall dissents on the ground that the suspicionless police sweeps of buses bear all the indicia of coercion and unjustified intrusion associated with the general warrant and violate core Fourth Amendment values.26 He maintains that the facts exhibit an intimidating show of authority through visible badges, bright green raid jackets, and one officer holding a gun in a recognizable pouch while partially blocking the aisle, without any advice that Bostick could terminate the encounter.27 Marshall argues that a reasonable passenger would not feel free to refuse or leave without risking being stranded in an unfamiliar location.28
He distinguishes INS v. Delgado because bus passengers cannot simply move about a larger workspace or depart without abandoning belongings.29