United States v. Regina Radford
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 8865
| 7th Cir. | 2017Background
- Regina Radford boarded an Amtrak in Flagstaff bound for Toledo and stopped in Galesburg where Officer Mings, in uniform, approached her roomette during a brief stop.
- Mings, who monitors Amtrak passenger schedules, suspected drug trafficking based on a one-way ticket, premium roomette purchase, origin/destination, and a stale arrest record.
- While Radford sat in a 3½×6½ ft. roomette, Mings identified himself, asked security questions, requested ID and ticket, and asked to search her luggage.
- Radford responded, “I guess so. You’re just doing your job,” stepped out of the roomette, and the officers found 707 grams of heroin in her bags.
- Radford moved to suppress, arguing the interaction was a seizure that coerced consent; the district court denied suppression, she pled guilty reserving appeal, and was sentenced to 12 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the encounter was a Fourth Amendment seizure | Mings’ presence in uniform, armed, standing over Radford in a tiny roomette, and failing to tell her she could refuse made a reasonable person feel not free to decline — thus a seizure | The encounter was consensual: officer remained in hallway, spoke conversationally, asked questions and requested consent; reasonable person could refuse | Encounter was not a seizure; interaction was a consensual encounter under Bostick/Drayton |
| Whether Radford’s consent was voluntary | Her answer (“I guess so”) and lack of knowledge she could refuse made the consent involuntary/coerced | Consent was at least acquiescence amounting to voluntary consent; lack of explicit knowledge of right to refuse is not dispositive | Consent was voluntary; “I guess so” sufficed as a yes under Schneckloth |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002) (police may request consent and questions without probable cause so long as no coercive seizure)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (no seizure if a reasonable person would feel free to decline/terminate the encounter)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973) (knowledge of right to refuse consent is not required for voluntariness)
- United States v. Goodwin, 449 F.3d 766 (7th Cir. 2006) (consensual train roomette encounters not seizures)
- United States v. Notorianni, 729 F.2d 520 (7th Cir. 1984) (officer requests for ID and consent can be nonseizure)
- United States v. Savage, 889 F.2d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (similar consent/seizure analysis in transit settings)
- United States v. Worley, 193 F.3d 380 (6th Cir. 1999) (examples of equivocal responses that may not indicate consent)
- United States v. Leiva, 821 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2016) (desirable phrasing when requesting consent to highlight voluntariness)