48 S.D. L. Rev. 104 (2003)
United States v. Drayton: Attention Passengers, All Carry-On Baggage and Constitutional Protections Are Checked in the Terminal

handle is hein.journals/sdlr48 and id is 114 raw text is: UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON

UNITED STATES V. DRA YTON: ATTENTION PASSENGERS, ALL
CARRY-ON BAGGAGE AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS ARE
CHECKED IN THE TERMINAL
JEREMY R. JEHANGIRI
The protections of the Fourth Amendment largely determine 'the kind of
society in which we live.''1
In United States v. Drayton,2 the United States Supreme Court
narrowly read and applied the Fourth Amendment, which serves to
protect against suspicionless and/or unreasonable searches and
seizures. In the government's war on drugs, bus sweeps are a
popular method of drug interdiction. This recent decision signals a
change in how suspicionless bus sweeps performed by law
enforcement officers are protected and, conversely, how citizens'
Constitutional rights are overlooked  The Court in its analysis
compared instances of police questioning taking place on the street
and airport terminals with those occurring on an interstate bus.
The Court held that police questioning on the street and within the
strict confines of a bus are one and the same. This casenote will
explore the coercive effect of a suspicionless bus encounter. In
addition, this casenote will explore whether the right to refuse
should accompany such encounters with law enforcement officers,
as well as examine the test involved to determine voluntary consent.
Summarily, the notion of voluntary consent is in desperate need of
reevaluation.
The Fourth Amendment's twin probable cause and warrant requirements
prohibit police officers from conducting arbitrary searches of a person's
home, vehicle, or belongings. Due in part to the amendment's literal
language, however, the United States Supreme Court has recognized
various exceptions to these procedural safeguards.  One of these
exceptions, the consent search, has received a considerable amount of
scholarly attention. Although few commentators have questioned the
desirability of allowing a citizen to forsake important Fourth Amendment
protections, many have challenged the United States Supreme Court's
notion of voluntary consent and the legal fiction that it gives rise to - that
the reasonable person feels comfortable declining police requests. The
intractable reality, opponents assert, is that the vast majority of people are
1. Craig Hemmens & Jeffrey R. Maahs, Reason To Believe: When Does Detention End and a
Consensual Encounter Begin? An Analysis of Ohio v. Robinette, 23 OHIO N.U. L. REv. 309, 321 (1996)
(quoting ERWIN N. GRISWOLD, SEARCH AND SEIZURE: A DILEMMA OF THE SUPREME COURT 39
(1975)).
2. United States v. Drayton, 122 S.Ct. 2105 (2002).

20031

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?