cannabisnews.com: Justices To Address Limits of Bus Searches Justices To Address Limits of Bus Searches Posted by FoM on January 05, 2002 at 09:35:11 PT By Linda Greenhouse Source: New York Times Although the Supreme Court has decided many cases growing out of encounters between police officers and bus passengers, the constitutional ground rules for these tense interactions remain unclear. Today the justices agreed to try again to define the boundary between a search to which a bus passenger has freely consented — and that is therefore permissible despite the absence of a warrant or probable cause — and one that is inherently coercive and therefore an unconstitutional seizure. The new case, one of eight the court accepted today for argument in April, is an appeal by the federal government from a ruling by the federal appeals court in Atlanta in October 2000. That court overturned the narcotics convictions of two men, passengers on an interstate bus, who agreed to a pat-down search by police officers who boarded the bus when it stopped at a Greyhound station in Tallahassee, Fla.Three officers boarded the bus, with two walking to the back while the third knelt in the driver's seat facing the passengers. The two officers then walked up the aisle, questioning passengers about their destinations and announcing that they were conducting "bus interdiction" in an effort to find drugs and weapons. The two men, Christopher Drayton and Clifton Brown Jr., who were seatmates, permitted the officers to search their overhead luggage, which contained nothing illegal.The officers, who noticed that the men were wearing heavy, baggy clothing on a hot day, then asked permission to conduct a pat-down search. They received permission, and detected objects on the men's thighs that resembled packages of drugs. Both men were arrested and taken off the bus. A further search revealed packages of cocaine taped inside multiple pairs of boxer shorts.In overturning the convictions, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held that despite the nominal consent, "these defendants' consent was not sufficiently free of coercion to serve as a valid basis for a search." The court said the passengers were not informed that they were free to leave and, given the presence of the third officer at the front of the bus, a "reasonable person" would not have felt free to do so.In its appeal, United States v. Drayton, No. 01-631, the government said the decision amounted to a requirement that police officers seeking to question passengers on a bus "must give Miranda-like warning first" and "effectively converts almost all police-citizen interactions on a bus into seizures" in the absence of specific advice that passengers are free to refuse to cooperate.The issue was important, the government said, because "interviews such as those that occurred in this case are a significant law enforcement tool to prevent crime." In an apparent reference to the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the government's brief said that "in the current environment," interactions between the police and the traveling public "may also become an important part of preventing other forms of criminal activity."In an effort to dissuade the court from accepting the appeal, lawyers for the two men said it was evident that there was no real consent because a pat-down in public of one's midsection and thighs was "an indignity to which no one traveling on public transportation — who was free to do otherwise — would likely consent."There were other significant criminal cases on the list of new appeals the justices granted today on their return from a four-week recess. In one case, the question was whether before pleading guilty a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to obtain any exculpatory information in the government's possession. This case, United States v. Ruiz, No. 01-595, is an appeal by the government from a ruling by the federal appeals court in San Francisco that the disclosure of such information was essential to make sure that a plea of guilty was fully informed and voluntary.A person who pleads guilty rather than face trial can waive many rights, like the right to appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said, but the right to receive the government's evidence is so important that it cannot be waived through a plea agreement.In its Supreme Court appeal, the government is arguing that this decision will "effectuate a radical change in guilty plea practice in the federal system." Under a practice known as a "fast-track agreement," a defendant pleads guilty in return for a lower sentence than the federal sentencing guidelines would otherwise provide; the agreement specifies that the government has turned over "any information establishing the factual innocence of the defendant."In this case, a woman who pleaded guilty to importing marijuana sought the lower sentence but refused to waive her right to receive information that would impeach the credibility of the government's witnesses. Consequently, the government did not agree to the lower sentence and the federal district court in San Diego refused to grant it. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit said the defendant, Angela Ruiz, was entitled to the information and could not be required to waive her right to it.Source: New York Times (NY)Author: Linda GreenhousePublished: January 5, 2002Copyright: 2002 The New York Times Company Contact: letters nytimes.com Website: http://www.nytimes.com/ Forum: http://forums.nytimes.com/comment/ Related Articles:Supreme Court To Decide if Suspects Have Rights http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11688.shtmlSupreme Court Will Hear Police Search Case http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread11685.shtmlSupreme Court's Reefer Madness http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread9723.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #21 posted by Dan B on January 07, 2002 at 03:49:25 PT: Thanks, mayan I just signed the petition, and I encourage all those who have not yet done so to consider adding their names to the list.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #20 posted by Dan B on January 07, 2002 at 03:48:53 PT: Thanks, mayan I just signed the petition, and I encourage all those who have not yet done so to consider adding their names to the list.Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #19 posted by mayan on January 06, 2002 at 23:21:08 PT &... I just noticed we can petition the U.S. Senate to investigate key points regarding that dreadful day:http://www.petitiononline.com/11601TFS/petition.html [ Post Comment ] Comment #18 posted by mayan on January 06, 2002 at 22:47:56 PT truth? & the media hasn't been mentioning the number of WTC casualties very much either. Come to think of it they haven't mentioned any of the casulty counts very much recently. The whole deal was rigged no doubt. The whole scheme just works out to perfectly for those who wish to preserve power. The g had 40 minutes after the second plane hits WTC#2 to scramble fighters over the NATIONS CAPITOL! I'm sorry but it is quite obvious that the U.S. air defense was ordered stood down. It is a fact that the FAA advised the military to implement standard intercept procedures in time to land or destroy all of the hijacked planes before they reached their targets. Not an A-10 let alone an F-16 to be seen in the sky over D.C.... not anything! How obvious could it all be? The truth is not what it may seem but without the truth nothing else matters.some related stories somewhere on these sites: http://www.copvcia.comhttp://www.rense.comhttp://www.apfn.org [ Post Comment ] Comment #17 posted by BGreen on January 06, 2002 at 20:44:07 PT: Countries, not country's Some mistakes aren't picked up by spell check. [ Post Comment ] Comment #16 posted by BGreen on January 06, 2002 at 20:09:59 PT: Inflated death toll Anybody notice how the death toll from 9/11 has dropped from 6,000 to 3,000? This is still a horrible tragedy, but not near as bad as some of the natural disasters some country's have recently faced, and over 300,000 people less than die each year from tobacco.I don't think we would be at war right now if the government wouldn't have exaggerated (LIED) about the casualty figures.I totally dismiss the excuse that many people were listed twice in the tally. Computers eliminate this kind of redundancy. This was a bald-faced lie so Bush, jr. could go to war.Bush, sr. saw his popularity plummet when we withdrew from his war and he was forced to deal with domestic policies, so I expect jr. to continue this "war" for the duration of his presidency. [ Post Comment ] Comment #15 posted by Lehder on January 06, 2002 at 09:37:30 PT War, Recession, National Emergency: Trifecta I completely agree with Dan B: Does anyone think it is a coincidence that the anthrax scare, aimed at the media, came about exactly when the Bush administration needed the full cooperation of the mass media?I think the relationship was causal, not coincidental. And the anthrax scare raged in high fever as the USA Patriot Act was passed 99-1 by senators who were afraid to enter their own offices and who voted without reading or even being supplied copies of this unconstitutional legislation. Coincidental? ``Lucky me. I hit the trifecta,'' Bush told Daniels shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the budget director.http://www.miami.com/herald/content/news/national/digdocs/059707.htmThe collapse of communism at the end of the Cold War removed from the world's political stage the last pretense of a principled opposition to the rule of money, and the pages of history suggest that oligarchies unhindered by conscience or common sense seldom take much of an interest in the cause of civil liberty. --Lewis Lapham Waiting for the Barbarians (Verso, 1997) [ Post Comment ] Comment #14 posted by dddd on January 06, 2002 at 06:29:19 PT I think you're right DanB........ ...but I would also consider the possibility of the makers of cipro to be likely suspects,,,perhaps in a collusive relationship with the insider...Obscene amounts of money were made by Bayer.....dddd [ Post Comment ] Comment #13 posted by Dan B on January 06, 2002 at 06:11:27 PT: Anthrax: Sent by Bush Insider? I suspect that the recent spate of anthrax mailings was concocted by members of the executive branch of the federal government. That is, I believe that the reason the person responsible has not been caught is that he or she is well-connected with members of the executive branch, and that at least some members of the Bush administration used the anthrax mailings to "send a message" to members of the media: if you're with us, we'll help you; cross us, and you're dead.Further, I suspect that the current coverage in the Enquirer and Globe alluded to by CongressmanSuet (thanks, by the way. I saw those covers, too) is demonstrative of the fact that even the tabloids have lined up in support of the Bush administration. Of course, anthrax also went to the major television networks, and the Bush administration was right there to provide free Cipro to all those exposed. Does anyone think it is a coincidence that the anthrax scare, aimed at the media, came about exactly when the Bush administration needed the full cooperation of the mass media?Just a theory, but I think it's a good one. One more thing: if I'm correct, we will never have definitive proof of who sent the anthrax. Dan B [ Post Comment ] Comment #12 posted by CongressmanSuet on January 05, 2002 at 20:30:49 PT I was just at the supermarket... and noticed the headlines on the Enquirer and the Globe. The Enquirer had a front page piece " How the Bushes tamed their Daughter's Wild Behavior" and the Globe ran a BIG front page picture of Chelsea Clinton looking abit loaded, which said " Chelsea, OUT OF CONTROL"! Even these rags are going Republican! They jump all over Chelsea, and kiss up to King George. Before 911, there were many articles critcizing Bush's daughters, but all of a sudden, NO MORE...they are now "under control". I know, I should have read the articles, but these rags arent getting a penney of my money, period. [ Post Comment ] Comment #11 posted by freedom fighter on January 05, 2002 at 17:57:26 PT Oh, no, not Jodie! :00) but then it is only in a mag that lies all the times.. eheh.. We deafies do even have a sign language specficially for this mag.. My mom used to read that mag all the time.. By the way, it would be an interesting study to find out how world treat certain groups at different time level by reading different mags like Lying Enquirer or even Madmag.I went to my local library and checked on current Mad Mag., it is loaded with cartoons making "fun" of "Drugs Issues".One of the script had 9 black robed judges singing around a sick patient, "Ohhhh, We decided you cannot have your medicine!".I did not know how to react to what I have had saw in that mag. I just wondered how others might think of this? If I recall it correctly, back in old days, Germany newspapers were full of cartoons making fun of the Jews during the height of the slaughter. Correct me if I am wrong?? ffPS)"We wonder why our children are filled with hate when we send our friendly officer Jackboots to schools to empower our children to hate." PSS)"Zero Tolerance is just another word for Intolerance and Intolerance is yet just another word for Hate." [ Post Comment ] Comment #10 posted by E_Johnson on January 05, 2002 at 17:35:03 PT I've always liked the Enquirer They located 22 credible former sexual assault victims of Willie Kennedy Smith during his rape trial, they organized the paparazzi photo exam fest that found the photo of OJ Simpson wearing those Bruno Magli shoes that he claimed he never owned, which nailed him for the civil trial, and they seem to be in touch with changing attitudes towards pot now.Much more so than the so-called "respectable" media.Let us not forget that their publisher was the first target of the anthrax terrorism. [ Post Comment ] Comment #9 posted by FoM on January 05, 2002 at 15:00:43 PT Thanks EJ Even if I bought one and the article was worth posting I don't have a scanner so I can't do it. Thank you for the suggestion. I do appreciate it. I don't even get any newspapers but our once a week one. That's bad! LOL! [ Post Comment ] Comment #8 posted by E_Johnson on January 05, 2002 at 14:42:25 PT Yes but... The tabloids don't put current newstand content online, if you want fresh gossip they make you go out and buy the thing.The tabloids are interesting. If you look at the way they approach gay celebrities, well Rosie O'Donnell most recently, they are kind of like the mainstream mediators. They took Rosie from a few shocking exposees on her outrageous private life to the latest sensitive and supportive coverage of her secret lesbian wedding ceremony with her lover Kelly.Maybe they're approaching marijuana like they approached Rosie's lesbianism. Milk it for scandal until it stops being scandalous, and then milk it for human interest until it stops being interesting.Jodie Foster's lesbianism used to be scandal but now it's like, ho hum, here's Jodie and her partner Cydney and their kids at another charity event, like all the other Hollywood couples at their charity event...Marijuana must not be that scandalous any more, otherwise the story about Charlize Theron would have been slanted to be about poor Charlize Theron, hooked on pot so badly that she smokes it from an apple. [ Post Comment ] Comment #7 posted by FoM on January 05, 2002 at 14:04:53 PT EJ are these the right links? Are these the right papers? I couldn't find anything. http://www.starmagazine.com/ http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ [ Post Comment ] Comment #6 posted by E_Johnson on January 05, 2002 at 13:54:47 PT Check the tabloids - Star and Enquirer I posted about this before. In this week's Enquirer and Star, there were celebrity pot stories that were both kind of cute, and I think politically significant, given the typical Enquirer and Star readership.Larry Hagman tells a funny marijuana and sex anecdote in the Star and Charlize Theron is photographed smoking from an apple bong at her pool party in the Enquirer.http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread11689.shtml#2 [ Post Comment ] Comment #5 posted by FoM on January 05, 2002 at 12:32:17 PT EJ - Jesse Ventura I would consider him too. Gore or Bush just don't make it. He is a little crude and opinionated but not as much as Bush or Gore and Jesse supports marijuana! Yes! that will do just fine. [ Post Comment ] Comment #4 posted by FoM on January 05, 2002 at 12:29:11 PT BGreen That's fine about reposting. I thought this might be a good time to mention the Recent Comment Link. If an article get's a comment it goes to the top of this page. Even if it is off the front page or sidebar articles. I know I had someone e-mail me and ask me about having the feature on C News and I sent them the link and they didn't know until I did. You can access this from every article and the left side of C News front page. Thought I'd pass it on!http://www.cannabisnews.com/newcomments.shtml [ Post Comment ] Comment #3 posted by E_Johnson on January 05, 2002 at 12:24:15 PT Jesse Ventura? Is he our only way out?It will probabaly be Bush and Ashcroft on the Repub ticket in 2004, and I know Al Gore is going to resurface by then and all the people in the Democratic Party with whom I am no longer speaking will rush in to put their brown noses up his inflated behind...I'm about ready to vote for a big macho outspoken populist right now. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by BGreen on January 05, 2002 at 11:36:32 PT: Sorry for the repost, but I don't want my comments buried in a dead thread.This thing has already been decided in the Supreme Court. Read the overview of the case I elude to in my letter:I used to go down to the bus station and watch the local fuzz shaking down the busses en route to or from L.A.They would start by examining all the luggage stowed beneath the bus visually, then they would walk through the bus and question any passenger they wanted. If they felt suspicious, they'd take the passenger off the bus, and ask consent to search their luggage. If the person agreed, the fuzzter had them point to their luggage, fuzzy wuzzy retrieved it, and they opened it up in the middle of the parking lot. They'd bring in a dog if they didn't get the proper cooperation.I watched a lot of innocent people being searched, but never saw anybody arrested. I heard on the news that one guy took off running, and they eventually found him along with some cocaine, but that's a small payoff for such a huge invasion of privacy.As I researched the legality of these non-warranted interrogations and searches, I found the following case:In Florida v. Bostick (89-1717), 501 U.S. 429 (1991) http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1717.ZO.html the Supreme Court overturned a decision by the Florida Supreme Court, which, in the Courts' opinion delivered by Justice O'Connor, had "adopted a per se rule that the Broward County Sheriff's practice of "working the buses" is unconstitutional."If you can put your hip-waders on to sludge through the BS, this case gives you a chilling overview of the state of our hapless highest court. I'd guess that they're all "fit shaced" on booze, because that's the only possible reason for using the term "high Court" on this bunch of clowns.I wonder if they all show up in the same tiny little car when they arrive for work???????????????? [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by E_Johnson on January 05, 2002 at 09:45:59 PT A war against the poor They don't come into the first class sections of airplanes and pat people down.It's the poor people who can't get fancy lawyers and put up big attitudes in the media that have the bear the brunt of these laws. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment