GA: Safety stop of interstate bus [likely targeting aliens] led to consensual encounters on the bus

An interstate bus was stopped on the highway for a safety inspection, and it was apparent that all the passengers were Spanish speakers. While the safety inspection was going on, other officers entered the bus to ask questions and seek consent searches of bags, making it clear that people could avoid the searches by just refusing. The encounters on the bus were constitutional. Solano-Rodriguez v. State, 295 Ga. App. 896, 673 S.E.2d 351 (2009):

Rather, the proper inquiry is “whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.” Id. at 436. The U.S. Supreme Court further clarified that the inquiry entails considering “all the circumstances surrounding the encounter,” and that the same standard applies “to encounters that take place on a city street[,] in an airport lobby,” or on a bus. Id. at 439-440; see Drayton, supra, 536 U.S. at 203-206 (applying Bostick framework and holding that defendants were not “seized” during drug interdiction effort on bus, even though officers never advised passengers that they had right to refuse to cooperate).

Ignoring Bostick, Solano-Rodriguez relies heavily on Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (127 SC 2400, 168 LE2d 132) (2007), in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that a passenger in a private car is seized during a traffic stop. In Brendlin, the U.S. Supreme Court expressly acknowledged that “the relationship between driver and passenger is not the same in a common carrier as it is in a private vehicle, and the expectations of police officers and passengers differ accordingly.” Id. at 2410 n.6. Brendlin did not purport to alter the framework in Bostick for determining whether a police officer’s encounter with a bus passenger is consensual.

Here, Solano-Rodriguez does not dispute that Garcia conducted his encounter with passengers after the bus was stopped for a bona fide, legally authorized safety inspection. The record shows that when he first boarded the bus, Garcia specifically advised passengers that they could leave the bus at any time and did not have to speak with him or comply with his requests. See Bostick, supra, 501 U.S. at 437 (fact that officers advised defendant that he could refuse to consent to search was among factors creating doubt that a seizure occurred); U.S. v. Watson, 80 Fed. Appx. 765, 767 (3d Cir. 2003) (district court did not err in finding that defendant’s encounter with police was voluntary where, inter alia, passengers were advised that cooperation was not required). After addressing passengers from the front of the bus, Garcia made a conscious decision to begin his inspection at the back of the bus so that he would not block the aisle if passengers wanted to exit. The record does not show that Pilcher or VanScoten did or said anything to discourage passengers from getting out of the bus.