United States v. Wise
208 F. Supp. 3d 805
S.D. Tex.2016Background
- In Sept. 2011, Conroe police waited at a Greyhound gas-stop where buses are required to stop and boarded Greyhound Bus 6408 to ask the driver for permission to search the bus.
- Five officers (mostly plainclothes, unbadged) conducted the operation; a uniformed officer with a drug dog stood nearby.
- Officers asked the driver to search the passenger cabin and luggage hold; the driver (per Greyhound policy) consented.
- An unclaimed backpack in the overhead rack was presented to a drug dog, which alerted; officers cut its lock and found bundles the officers believed were cocaine.
- After finding drugs, officers removed and questioned Wise, matched keys on his lanyard to the backpack lock, and arrested him for possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Conroe police created an unconstitutional checkpoint by waiting at mandatory bus stops to question/search buses | The stop was a suspicionless checkpoint: forcing the bus/driver into an interaction at a choke point without individualized suspicion | Stops at routine bus waypoints are not checkpoints; officers were conducting ordinary inquiries and relied on voluntary consents | Court held the police created a checkpoint—an unlawful seizure—because officers targeted mandatory stops to interrogate/search without suspicion |
| Whether the checkpoint/search served a permissible, narrow purpose under Fourth Amendment checkpoint doctrine | The program sought general evidence of ordinary crimes (drugs, money, guns, aliens) — not a narrow traffic- or safety-related purpose, so it was unconstitutional | Government asserted interests like security or immigration and relied on pattern of drug carriage on buses to justify stops | Court held the checkpoint lacked a constitutionally permissible, particularized purpose (it sought ordinary criminal evidence) and thus was unreasonable |
| Whether the driver’s consent to search was voluntary and could cure the illegality of the seizure | Driver’s consent was coerced by Greyhound’s operational and economic pressures and the coercive context of officers waiting at the stop | Consent was given by the driver (and company policy permits consent), so search was lawful if voluntary | Court held driver’s consent was not voluntary given the coercive context and company pressure; it did not cure the illegal seizure |
| Whether Wise (passenger) gave independent voluntary consent and whether the evidence must be suppressed | Wise’s and driver’s consent were temporally and causally connected to the illegal seizure; consents were not independent free acts, so evidence is tainted | Government argued consents were voluntary and intervening acts that broke the causal chain from the initial seizure to discovery | Court held consents were not sufficiently independent; the cocaine was the product of the illegal seizure and must be suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (criminal-transport setting: reasonableness of bus passenger consent examined)
- United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (consent to search on buses can be voluntary under some circumstances)
- City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (checkpoint seizures invalid if primary purpose is general crime control)
- Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (upholding narrowly tailored DUI checkpoint)
- United States v. Portillo-Aguirre, 311 F.3d 647 (5th Cir.: consent and attenuation analysis post-illegal seizure)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness-of-consent test and government burden to prove it)
- U.S. v. Wilmington, 240 F. Supp. 2d 311 (M.D. Pa. case discussing bus-search practices)