United States v. Correa
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11970
8th Cir.2011Background
- Correa was traveling by bus through Omaha when Nebraska state troopers focused on cash-ticket passengers from drug source cities and identified Correa as a target.
- Troopers questioned Correa on the bus; he appeared evasive, nervous, and rearranged a jacket near him during the encounter.
- Correa consented to a search of his jacket, which revealed two duct-taped wet wipe containers; each container weighed about a pound and later contained methamphetamine.
- Correa was taken off the bus, handcuffed, and transported to a bus-terminal back office where officers opened the containers after Correa’s voluntary surrender of the items.
- Miranda warnings were given after the containers were opened; Correa waived rights and made incriminating statements.
- The district court suppressed the drugs and statements as Fourth Amendment violations, and the government appealed in an interlocutory fashion; the district court’s ruling was stayed pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Correa detained on the bus under the Fourth Amendment? | United States argues no detention occurred. | Correa contends the exchange and questions constrained his liberty. | No detention; Correa was not seized on the bus. |
| Was Correa's consent to search voluntary? | United States maintains consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances. | Correa contends consent was coerced or not freely given. | Consent to search was voluntary. |
| Was removing Correa from the bus and handcuffing him valid under Terry? | United States argues detention and protective handcuffing were reasonable. | Correa argues the removal amounted to an unlawful arrest without probable cause. | Detention and handcuffing were reasonably necessary; did not violate the Fourth Amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Drayton, 536 F.3d 194 (U.S. Supreme Court 2002) (no detention where officers gave non-coercive, non-threatening questions on a bus)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (U.S. 1991) (passenger free to decline or terminate encounter during bus stop)
- United States v. Va Lerie, 424 F.3d 694 (8th Cir. 2005) (consent factors include age, education, sobriety, and context; reasonable officer standard)
- United States v. Pena-Ponce, 588 F.3d 579 (8th Cir. 2009) (reasonable officer would believe consent was given)
- United States v. Angulo-Guerrero, 328 F.3d 449 (8th Cir. 2003) (no detention when bus passenger asked for immigration documents during stop)
- United States v. Richards, 611 F.3d 966 (8th Cir. 2010) (tone of second officer can affect whether a reasonable person feels free to decline)
- United States v. Navarro-Reyes/Navarrete-Barron, 192 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 1999) (handcuffing during a Terry stop can be a reasonable precaution)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1980) (detention analysis: reasonable person would feel not free to leave)
- United States v. Navarrete-Barron, 192 F.3d 786 (8th Cir. 1999) (police actions during a stop must be reasonably necessary to protect safety)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (U.S. 2007) (passengers can be seized during a traffic stop)
- United States v. Guerrero, 374 F.3d 584 (8th Cir. 2004) (language barriers and understanding affect voluntariness of consent)
- United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2002) (searches on a bus during a stop can occur without detention)