United States of Amercia v. Christopher Drayton & Clifton Brown, Jr.

Citations: 231 F.3d 787; 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 26791; 2000 WL 1584545Docket: 99-13814, 99-15152

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; October 24, 2000; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Christopher Drayton and Clifton Brown, Jr. were convicted of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute, following a warrantless search conducted by police during a bus stop. They appealed the denial of their motions to suppress the evidence obtained from their search, arguing that their consent was not given voluntarily under the Fourth Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals focused on whether the consent was "uncoerced and legally voluntary," referencing prior case law, particularly *United States v. Washington*. 

On February 4, 1999, during a scheduled stop in Tallahassee, Florida, all passengers were required to exit the bus. When re-boarding, three officers were permitted to board the bus without making their presence known through announcements or visible badges. The officers, clad casually and armed with concealed weapons, began questioning passengers about their travel and luggage. Lang, one of the officers, approached Drayton and Brown, leaning closely and showing his badge to request their consent for a search. The lack of overt coercion during this interaction was deemed insufficient to establish that their consent was truly voluntary, leading the court to uphold the conviction based on the precedent established in *Washington*.

Investigator Lang of the Tallahassee Police Department conducted a bus interdiction aimed at deterring drug and weapon transport. Both defendants identified a green bag on the bus, which Lang checked and found no contraband. Observing that the defendants wore heavy jackets and baggy pants on a warm day and exhibited unusual cooperation, Lang requested permission from Brown for a pat-down search. During this search, Lang detected hard objects in Brown's thigh areas, leading to Brown's arrest. A similar pat-down of Drayton revealed hard objects in his thighs, resulting in his arrest as well. After the arrests, Lang found plastic bundles of cocaine duct-taped between the defendants' boxer shorts, with Brown possessing 483 grams and Drayton 295 grams of cocaine.

The legal analysis references the case of United States v. Washington, which ruled that a search violated the Fourth Amendment due to the coercive nature of the officers' requests. The distinction in this case lies in the individual approach by Officer Lang, who showed authority by leaning close and informing the defendants of the search, rather than making a general announcement to all passengers. The court argued that this specific show of authority was equally coercive and did not provide the reassurance given in Washington that no one was under arrest. Thus, the court concluded that the circumstances of the search were similarly problematic.

Officer Lang's search of the defendants' bus differed from the Washington case in several key aspects. Firstly, Lang did not request tickets or identification from passengers prior to the search, which in Washington was done to identify suspicious circumstances. However, the lack of such requests does not negate the potential coercive nature of the search (citing Guapi). Secondly, Lang's prior experience included five to seven instances where passengers declined searches, yet he did not indicate that the methods and statements used in those instances were the same as in this case. Importantly, no passengers refused the search in this instance, and out of approximately eight hundred bus searches conducted over the past year, only a small number of refusals were noted. 

A significant factor favoring the defendants was the presence of an officer stationed at the bus exit, which could lead passengers to feel they could not leave, implying that the searches were mandatory. This contrasts with the Washington case, where no officer was positioned at the front of the bus. The court concluded that these distinctions necessitated a reversal of the defendants' convictions and a remand for the district court to grant their motions to suppress evidence. The document also notes that while the Washington decision has faced criticism from the Tenth Circuit, the court remains bound by it in this case.

Officer Lang was the sole witness at the joint hearing regarding the defendants' motions to suppress evidence. The ruling aligns with the precedent set in United States v. Hill, which found suppression warranted under similar circumstances, although Hill is an unpublished opinion and not binding. Nonetheless, its reasoning is viewed as persuasive. The court noted that, in Guapi, it had previously suggested that individual officer approaches to passengers did not imply coercion, but this was merely dicta and not applicable to the current facts. The government attempted to differentiate this case from Washington by highlighting the defendants' backgrounds—Drayton's age and employment history, and Brown's prior role as a correctional officer. However, the court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the evaluation of whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline an officer's request is objective, as established by Florida v. Bostick.