Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Florida v. Bostick

Supreme Court of the United States · 1991 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth Amendmentseizurebus sweepfree to leave testFourth Amendmentseizureconsensual encounter

Facts

During a stopover in Fort Lauderdale, two Broward County Sheriff's officers boarded a bus traveling from Miami to Atlanta and, without articulable suspicion, approached Bostick. They asked to inspect his ticket and identification, returned both, explained that they were narcotics agents, and requested consent to search his luggage. As the Florida Supreme Court's factual premise required, the officers specifically advised Bostick that he could refuse consent, and they did not point guns at or otherwise threaten him. Cocaine was found in a suitcase belonging to Bostick, and he sought suppression on Fourth Amendment grounds.

Issue

Does a police encounter on a bus necessarily constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure simply because a reasonable passenger would not feel free to leave the bus? More specifically, may a court adopt a per se rule that suspicionless bus questioning of passengers is always an impermissible seizure?

Rule

A seizure does not occur merely because police approach an individual, ask questions, examine identification, or request consent to search, so long as they do not convey that compliance is required. When a person's freedom of movement is restricted by a factor independent of police conduct, the proper test is not whether the person felt free to leave, but whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter, considering all the circumstances.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a scheduled stop in Albuquerque, two officers board a long-distance train and approach Nina Patel, who is seated by the window. They ask to see her ticket and driver's license, immediately return both, and then ask whether they may look inside her duffel bag; they do not block the aisle or display weapons. Nina agrees, and contraband is found.

If Nina moves to suppress on the ground that she was seized because she was not realistically free to leave the train without disrupting her trip, how should a court analyze the issue?

Explanation. The majority rejected a per se rule for encounters on buses and, by the same logic, other confined travel settings. Where the person's inability to leave stems from travel circumstances independent of police conduct, the proper inquiry is not simply whether she felt free to leave, but whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the requests or otherwise terminate the encounter, considering all the circumstances.