SUPREME COURT JUSTICES TO ADDRESS LIMITS OF BUS SEARCHES

WASHINGTON -- 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.