Florida v. Bostick
501 U.S. 429 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A police encounter on a bus does not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure per se. The correct test is whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that they were not free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.
Facts:
- Terrance Bostick was a passenger on a bus scheduled to travel from Miami to Atlanta.
- During a scheduled stopover in Fort Lauderdale, two Broward County Sheriff's deputies boarded the bus as part of a drug interdiction program.
- The officers, wearing badges and insignia, and with one carrying a pistol in a zipper pouch, approached Bostick without any articulable suspicion.
- The officers requested to see Bostick's ticket and identification, which he provided and were promptly returned to him.
- The officers then identified themselves as narcotics agents and requested Bostick's consent to search his luggage.
- The officers advised Bostick that he had the right to refuse consent to the search.
- Bostick consented to the search, which revealed cocaine in his suitcase.
Procedural Posture:
- Terrance Bostick was charged with trafficking in cocaine in a Florida trial court.
- Bostick filed a motion to suppress the cocaine, arguing it resulted from an unconstitutional seizure.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- Bostick entered a guilty plea but reserved the right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion.
- The Florida District Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's decision but certified a question to the state's highest court.
- The Florida Supreme Court, the state's highest court, reversed, holding that the police practice constituted a per se unconstitutional seizure.
- The State of Florida (petitioner) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the random boarding of a bus by police for the purpose of questioning passengers and requesting consent to search their luggage constitute a per se seizure under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No. The random boarding of a bus by police for the purpose of questioning passengers and requesting consent to search luggage does not constitute a per se seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Florida Supreme Court erred by focusing on whether a passenger felt 'free to leave,' a standard that is inappropriate when a person's movement is already restricted by their choice to be a passenger on a bus. The correct standard for determining if a seizure has occurred is whether, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter. Factors to consider include the threatening presence of officers, the display of weapons, physical touching, or the use of language or tone indicating that compliance is compelled. Because the Florida court applied an incorrect per se rule based solely on the location of the encounter, the case must be remanded for a determination based on all the circumstances surrounding this specific encounter.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. A suspicionless, dragnet-style police sweep of a bus inherently constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The majority's test is flawed because the circumstances of a bus sweep are inherently coercive. A reasonable person confronted by armed officers in the cramped, confined space of a bus, with an officer potentially blocking the aisle, would not feel free to decline to cooperate or terminate the encounter. The passenger faces the 'choice' of cooperating or being stranded in an unfamiliar place. This police tactic exploits a citizen's confinement and is precisely the type of intimidating, suspicionless intrusion that the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent.
Analysis:
This decision rejects a location-based, per se rule for Fourth Amendment seizures in favor of a flexible 'totality of the circumstances' test. It modifies the classic 'free to leave' standard for situations where a person is already in a confined space by their own choice, shifting the inquiry to whether they feel free to refuse cooperation. The ruling gives law enforcement more leeway to conduct 'bus sweeps' and similar suspicionless encounters in confined public spaces, placing the burden on lower courts to determine on a case-by-case basis whether specific police conduct was coercive enough to constitute a seizure.
Unlock the full brief for Florida v. Bostick