United States v. Morris Wise
877 F.3d 209
5th Cir.2017Background
- On Sept. 15, 2011 Conroe PD officers conducted a bus interdiction at a scheduled Greyhound stop; five officers boarded (four plainclothes, one uniformed with a canine).
- Officer Sanders questioned passenger Morris Wise after observing suspicious behavior and a ticket in the name “James Smith.” Two bags were in the overhead bin above Wise: a duffle and a backpack. Wise claimed only the duffle; no one claimed the backpack.
- Officers removed the unclaimed backpack at the driver’s request, the canine alerted, and officers cut a TSA lock to find packages containing suspected cocaine.
- After the discovery, officers asked Wise to exit the bus; he complied. Off the bus he emptied his pockets, produced ID and keys, and was arrested when a key fit the backpack lock.
- Wise moved to suppress all evidence obtained after the officers boarded; the district court granted suppression treating the operation as an unconstitutional checkpoint and finding the driver’s consent involuntary. The Government appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Wise’s Argument | Government’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the interdiction was an unconstitutional checkpoint stop | The police created a checkpoint by waiting at a scheduled bus stop and forcing interaction | This was a voluntary bus interdiction, not a government-initiated roadblock | Reversed district court: not a checkpoint; driver stopped per schedule and was not forced to interact |
| Standing to challenge driver’s consent to search passenger cabin | Wise contends driver’s consent affected his possessory interest in luggage | Government: passenger lacks standing to challenge cabin consent though has expectation in personal luggage | Wise lacks standing to challenge driver’s consent to search the bus cabin; passenger privacy limited to own luggage |
| Whether officers unreasonably seized Wise (Bostick/Drayton test) | Wise says presence of multiple officers, canine, and failure to notify rights made encounter nonconsensual | Government: encounter was consensual under Bostick/Drayton; no force, exits unblocked, conversational tone | No unreasonable seizure; a reasonable person could terminate the encounter; Drayton controlling |
| Voluntariness of consent / Terry frisk legality | Wise contends consent to search, to exit bus, and to empty pockets was coerced; pat-down/seizure unlawful | Government: interactions were voluntary; if Terry stop, officers had reasonable suspicion based on behavior and unclaimed backpack containing drugs | Court found consent voluntary; even if Terry stop, officers had reasonable suspicion to detain and ask him to empty pockets |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) (roadblock drug checkpoints invalid when primary purpose is general crime control)
- Mich. Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) (sobriety checkpoints upheld under special-needs analysis)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (officers may stop-and-frisk on specific and articulable suspicion)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (bus passenger seizure test: would a reasonable person feel free to decline or terminate encounter)
- Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004) (checkpoint stopping traffic to solicit information permissible in some contexts)
- United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002) (police boarding buses may question passengers; no seizure absent coercive police conduct)
- United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) (immigration checkpoints permissible despite significant intrusion in some circumstances)
- United States v. Arce-Jasso, 389 F.3d 124 (5th Cir. 2004) (procedural rule on appellate timing for suppression orders)