Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; November 18, 1988; Federal Appellate Court
On August 18, 1987, Bryan Andrew Hammock was a passenger on a Trailways bus traveling from Miami to Atlanta. Upon arrival at the Greyhound Bus Terminal in Ft. Lauderdale, detectives from the Broward County Sheriff's Department, engaged in a drug interdiction program, boarded the bus with the driver's consent. The detectives, dressed casually but identifiable as law enforcement, began questioning passengers about their luggage. Hammock initiated contact by asking if they were searching for drugs. Detective Bukata identified himself and asked if Hammock would speak with him, to which Hammock consented.
Hammock claimed a white plastic bag as his only luggage, despite a blue tote bag being nearby. After no passengers claimed the tote bag, the detectives removed it from the bus and discovered it contained one kilogram of cocaine along with clothing and a receipt from a Miami store. Believing Hammock was the likely owner of the jeans found in the tote, Detective Bukata returned to ask Hammock for consent to a search of his person. After being informed that the search was voluntary, Hammock began emptying his pockets. The detective found a receipt matching the one from the tote bag, leading to Hammock's arrest for cocaine trafficking.
The appellant, after receiving Miranda warnings, admitted to detectives that he was aware of a kilogram of cocaine in a tote bag he had abandoned. He subsequently cooperated with law enforcement in a controlled delivery of the cocaine to an accomplice. Indicted for conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 846, the appellant moved to suppress the cocaine as the result of an illegal search and seizure. The district court denied this motion after an evidentiary hearing. The appellant later entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced, challenging the suppression denial on appeal.
The appellant contends that he abandoned the tote bag when he refused to claim it, thereby relinquishing any Fourth Amendment protections over it. The law states that abandoned property does not warrant constitutional protection, allowing for its seizure without probable cause. However, the appellant argues that the evidence should be suppressed as the product of an unconstitutional arrest prior to the discovery of the bag. The determination of whether an arrest occurred depends on whether a reasonable person in the appellant's situation would have felt free to leave, considering factors such as obstruction of movement, retention of identification, officer statements, display of weapons, the number of officers present, the duration of the encounter, and any physical restraint.
Detectives did not obstruct the appellant's exit or act threateningly; rather, the appellant initiated the conversation. While actions that do not constitute an arrest in some contexts, like airports, may do so in the bus setting due to limited passenger movement, the detectives ensured that passengers felt free to leave. Consequently, the trial court's finding that a reasonable person would feel free to exit the bus was not clearly erroneous. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the appellant's motion to suppress. The decision references the precedent established in Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., which binds all rulings of Unit B of the former Fifth Circuit post-September 30, 1981.
