## Facts

- Christopher Drayton and Clifton Brown, Jr. traveled on a Greyhound bus from Fort Lauderdale, Florida, to Detroit, Michigan.
- During a scheduled stop in Tallahassee, Florida, three plainclothes police officers boarded the bus as part of a drug and weapons interdiction effort; their badges were visible and their weapons concealed.
- One officer positioned himself near the front to observe while not blocking the aisle or exit; another stayed near the rear; the third (Lang) approached passengers individually, asking about travel and seeking to associate passengers with bags.
- Lang approached Drayton and Brown, identified himself as an officer, stated police were looking for “drugs and weapons,” and asked if they had luggage.
- After Brown indicated an overhead bag, Lang asked if he could search it; Brown consented, and no contraband was found.
- Lang then asked Brown if he could “check his person”; Brown consented, and a pat-down revealed hard objects consistent with drug packages on Brown’s thighs.
- Lang asked Drayton, “Mind if I check you?” Drayton consented and raised his hands slightly; a pat-down revealed similar objects.
- Both men were arrested; each had cocaine taped between his shorts and legs.
- The district court denied suppression, finding no coercion and voluntary consent; the Eleventh Circuit reversed, reasoning passengers would not feel free to refuse absent a clear indication they could do so.

## Issues

1. Whether the officers’ conduct on the bus constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure such that a reasonable passenger would not feel free to decline requests or end the encounter.
2. Whether valid consent to a search on a bus requires police to advise passengers of the right to refuse cooperation and refuse consent.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Eleventh Circuit in a 6–3 decision by Justice Kennedy.
- The Court held the encounter was not a seizure under the totality of the circumstances.
- The Court held the Fourth Amendment does not require officers to advise bus passengers of the right to refuse cooperation or consent.
- The Court concluded Brown’s and Drayton’s consents were voluntary, so the cocaine was admissible.

## Legal Principles

- Police may approach bus passengers, ask questions, and request consent to search without effectuating a seizure, so long as a reasonable person would feel free to decline the requests or terminate the encounter.
- Whether a seizure occurred and whether consent was voluntary are evaluated under the totality of the circumstances, including officers’ tone, positioning, display of force, and whether exits are blocked.
- Knowledge of the right to refuse consent is a factor in voluntariness, but the government need not prove such knowledge as a prerequisite to valid consent.
- The confined setting of a bus is relevant but does not itself make an encounter coercive; the focus remains on police conduct and its effect on a reasonable person.

## Conclusion

The Court held that officers conducting bus interdiction questioning did not seize Drayton or Brown and that consent to searches was voluntary even without an explicit warning that passengers could refuse, rejecting a categorical advisement requirement under the Fourth Amendment.


United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002)