536 U.S. 194 (2002)
On February 4, 1999, Christopher Drayton and Clifton Brown, Jr. were traveling on a Greyhound bus from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to Detroit, Michigan.1 The bus made a scheduled stop in Tallahassee, Florida, where passengers were required to disembark for refueling and cleaning before reboarding.2 The driver checked their tickets and then left the bus to complete paperwork inside the terminal.3
Three members of the Tallahassee Police Department boarded the bus as part of a routine drug and weapons interdiction effort.4 The officers wore plain clothes, carried concealed weapons, and displayed visible badges.5 Officer Hoover knelt on the driver's seat facing the rear of the bus.6 Officers Lang and Blackburn went to the rear, where Blackburn remained stationed while Lang moved forward speaking individually with passengers about their travel plans and matching them to overhead luggage.7
Lang approached Drayton, who sat in the aisle seat, and Brown, who sat next to the window.8 Lang held up his badge, identified himself, asked if they had bags on the bus, and received permission to check their single green bag, which contained no contraband.9 Noticing their heavy jackets and baggy pants in warm weather, Lang asked Brown if he had weapons or drugs and received consent to pat him down, detecting hard objects in both thigh areas.10 Brown was arrested and removed from the bus.11
Lang then asked Drayton if he minded a check, and Drayton lifted his hands about eight inches from his legs.12 The patdown revealed similar hard objects, leading to Drayton's arrest and removal.13 Further searches found duct-taped plastic bundles of powder cocaine: Brown possessed three bundles totaling 483 grams, and Drayton possessed two bundles totaling 295 grams.14
Respondents were charged with conspiring to distribute cocaine and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846.15 Following a suppression hearing at which only Officer Lang testified, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida denied the motions to suppress.16 The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded with instructions to grant the motions.17 The Supreme Court granted certiorari.18
Whether police officers seized bus passengers when they boarded the bus during a scheduled stop, positioned themselves at the front and rear, and questioned individual passengers about their travel plans and luggage while requesting consent to search without advising them of a right to refuse?19
A person is seized under the Fourth Amendment only when, considering the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to terminate the encounter and go about his or her business.20 Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991).21 Relevant factors include the number of officers, their demeanor, display of weapons, physical touching, and any language or tone suggesting that compliance is required.22
No. The officers boarded after the driver left for paperwork and wore plain clothes with concealed weapons. Officer Hoover knelt on the driver's seat facing rearward without blocking the aisle.23 Officer Lang moved forward speaking individually in a polite quiet voice, held his badge briefly, and left the aisle clear so respondents could exit.24
Passengers commonly left the bus for snacks during such encounters, confirming that a reasonable innocent person would feel free to decline or terminate the questioning.25
The officers did not seize respondents.26
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Souter dissented on the seizure issue. He emphasized that three officers took control of the passenger compartment after the driver surrendered the tickets and left, with one stationed at the front door and the others working forward in a fifteen-inch-wide aisle.27 The close quarters forced passengers to look up at officers whose faces were only a foot or eighteen inches away, creating an atmosphere of obligatory participation that a reasonable person would not feel free to ignore.28
Souter concluded that the facts required more than a quiet tone to satisfy the Bostick totality test.29
Whether the passengers' consent to patdown searches of their persons was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances?30
Consent to a search is voluntary when the totality of the circumstances shows it was the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice.31 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973).32 Knowledge of the right to refuse is one factor but not a prerequisite; the government need not prove such knowledge as the sine qua non of effective consent.33
Yes. Officer Lang asked permission to check the green bag and received an affirmative response before searching it.34 He then asked Brown if he minded a check of his person, and Brown said sure while cooperating by leaning forward and opening his jacket.35 After arresting Brown, Lang asked Drayton Mind if I check you, and Drayton responded by lifting his hands.36
No commands were given, the tone remained polite, and the District Court found the entire exchange cooperative with no coercion or confrontation.37 The totality of these circumstances establishes that both respondents voluntarily consented to the patdowns.38
The consent to the patdown searches was voluntary.39