Jun 26, 2002 3 min read

We’re sure you’ve watched enough police shows to know that you have the right to remain silent and all that other jazz. But did you know that you also have the right to tell police that they can’t search you or your luggage without a warrant? The majority on the United States Supreme Court thinks Americans already know that they don’t have to submit to a search unless police have a warrant in hand. Given the stories that we have heard over the years, we doubt that most people, especially those who have had little dealings with police, know that they can refuse a search of their home, car or even their luggage packed onboard a bus.

These warrantless searches are called consensual searches. Police ask for consent, and if it is given they can then look through bags and purses. Americans have long understood that in the interest of security, their luggage can be searched when traveling by air. But the same rules do not apply for bus trips, although buses and trains are routinely checked by police looking for drug couriers.

The case in hand arose when two men, Christopher Drayton and Clifton Brown, wearing heavy clothing on a warm day in Tallahassee, Fla., board a Greyhound bus. Their clothing fit the profile of possible couriers. Officers asked for permission to search, which the men granted.

They were then arrested and later convicted of having strapped bricks of cocaine to their legs.

The men appealed their conviction claiming they were coerced by police because they were not told they had the right to refuse. Their lawyers argued the men felt boxed into their seats by officers and were unable to either refuse or to get up and leave. The Supremes found this was nonsense and that everyone knows they can tell police no.

Without consent for a search, officers either strike out in pursuing their suspicions or if they have reasonable cause for their suspicions they can obtain a warrant to effectuate a search. It’s quite possible that they could have detained the two men and obtained a warrant. Officers rely on the fact that many people don’t know they can refuse.

We can’t help but wonder if the Supreme Court would have ruled this way had Sept. 11 not have occurred as the decision was tainted with concerns about public safety and in giving officers more leeway in fighting terrorism.

Wrote Justice Kennedy, “Bus passengers answer officers’ questions and otherwise cooperate not because of coercion but because the passengers know that their participation enhances their own safety and the safety of those around them.”

It’s highly doubtful that two drug couriers feared terrorism in permitting the search. More likely they feared repercussions from law enforcement.

As Justice Souter wrote in his dissent, “It is very hard to believe that either Brown or Drayton would have believed that he stood to lose nothing if he refused to cooperate with police, or that he had any free choice to ignore the police altogether.”

The choice of refusal is becoming even more difficult post Sept. 11. Those who refuse will automatically be thought to be hiding something rather than exercising their Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches.