United States v. Harris

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30990
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MARECO D. HARRIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(01-CR-50008-ALL)
--------------------
July 9, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Mareco D. Harris (“Harris”) appeals the
district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence that
supports his conviction for possession with the intent to
distribute 50 grams or more of cocaine base. Harris argues that
the evidence, which was discovered during a pat-down search outside
the bus on which he was a passenger, violated the Fourth Amendment.
He contends that when the officers ordered him to display his
ticket and step off the bus, he did not feel free to decline.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
We apply a two-tier standard in reviewing a district court’s
denial of a motion to suppress. United States v. Hunt, 253 F.3d
227, 229 (5th Cir. 2001). The district court’s fact findings are
reviewed for clear error and its ultimate conclusion as to the
constitutionality of the law enforcement action is reviewed de
novo. Id. at 229-30. The evidence is viewed in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party. Id. at 230.
Police officers violate the Fourth Amendment when they board
a bus and question passengers in such a way that a reasonable
person would not feel free to terminate the encounter or decline
the officer’s request. See Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 435
(1991). Just last month, in United States v. Drayton, No. 01-631,
2002 WL 1305729 (U.S. June 17, 2002), the Supreme Court noted that
the arrest of the defendant’s friend on the bus should have put the
defendant on notice of the consequences of continuing his
interaction with the police. “The arrest of one person does not
mean that everyone around him has been seized by the police.” Id.
at *8. Here, two officers identified themselves as law enforcement
agents and informed the passengers that dogs were going to check
the bus for illegal drugs. The passengers were also told that they
were free to get off the bus with their luggage, but that those who
did would be questioned.
Initially Harris remained on the bus, but was subsequently
asked to step off because he and a previously arrested, narcotics-
2
possessing passenger were both traveling from the same place, to
the same destination, on tickets issued consecutively and in the
same name (“Harris”). As Harris was exiting the bus, the officer
noticed a bulge on Harris’s inner thigh, which observation led to
the discovery of the narcotics in his possession. Under the
totality of the circumstances, Harris’s encounter with the officers
did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.
Harris’s contention that the officers’ search of the bus
violated Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653-55 (1979), is
meritless. The evidence presented at the suppression hearing
established that the detention of the bus was random and that the
bus driver and bus station manager consented to the search of the
bus. See United States v. Hernandez-Zuniga, 215 F.3d 483, 487-89
(5th Cir.), cert denied, 531 U.S. 1038 (2000).
The district court did not err in denying Harris’s motion to
suppress.
AFFIRMED.
S:\OPINIONS\UNPUB\01\01-30990.0.wpd
4/29/04 4:41 pm
3