NCJ Number
150748
Journal
New England Law Review Volume: 27 Issue: 3 Dated: (Spring 1993) Pages: 825- 856
Date Published
1993
Length
32 pages
Annotation
This article critiques the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Florida v. Bostick (1991), which used a valid and logical test to determine, for fourth amendment purposes, whether a person has been seized by law enforcement officers.
Abstract
The test was whether the reasonable person would feel free to refuse an officer's requests or otherwise terminate a police/citizen encounter. The Court, however, in applying this test to the facts of "Bostick" allowed itself to be influenced by the pressure placed on law enforcement agencies to have an edge in fighting the "war on drugs." Consequently, the Court erroneously decided that it is possible for a reasonable person in Bostick's position to have felt free to leave or terminate the encounter with the officers. The Court's error stemmed from its unrealistic portrayal of the reasonable person. The reasonable person, according to the Bostick Court, is able to endure being approached and questioned by two officers with badges and police jackets (one with a weapon displayed), while seated on a crowded bus, without feeling that he must cooperate. In addition, this reasonable person does not find it coercive that his only options are to ignore these two officers or exit the bus. He knows that he can disregard the officer's requests and that his refusal to cooperate cannot and will not be held against him. It is this reasonable person that the Court believes rides the interstate buses of the United States. This conclusion is both far-fetched and inconsistent with prior depictions of the reasonable person by the Court. 292 footnotes