U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Crime to Court: Police Officer's Handbook

NCJ Number
131987
Journal
Crime to Court Dated: (September 1991) complete issue
Author(s)
J C Coleman
Date Published
1991
Length
24 pages
Annotation
The case presented in this police officer's handbook is based on the 1991 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Florida v. Bostick that involved random police questioning of bus passengers and the discovery of cocaine in the luggage of one passenger.
Abstract
The fourth amendment permits police officers to approach individuals at random in airport lobbies and other public places to ask them questions and request consent to search their luggage, as long as individuals understand they can refuse to cooperate. At issue is whether the same rule applies to police encounters on buses. In the Bostick case, two police officers discovered cocaine when they searched his suitcase. The police specifically advised Bostick that he had the right to refuse consent, and at no time did the officers threaten Bostick with a gun. Bostick was arrested and charged with cocaine trafficking. He moved to suppress the cocaine charge on the grounds that it had been seized in violation of his fourth amendment rights. The trial court denied the motion, but made no factual findings. Bostick later entered a guilty plea, but reserved the right to appeal. The police officers lacked the reasonable suspicion required to justify a seizure, although a seizure did not occur simply because police officers approached the individual and asked questions. The Florida Supreme Court adopted a per se rule prohibiting the police from randomly boarding buses as a means of drug interdiction. The Florida court rested its decision on a single fact, that the encounter occurred on a bus. It is suggested that courts must consider all circumstances surrounding an encounter in order to determine whether a particular encounter constitutes a seizure. As long as the encounter is consensual, no fourth amendment scrutiny should be generated.