Talk:United States v. Drayton/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 04:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to take this one. delldot ∇. 04:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks delldot! I look forward to your review! I promise I will try to respond more quickly than I have with Bowman v. Monsanto :-) -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No worries, take your time. I'll probably get this under way once we wrap up with that. delldot ∇. 21:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Just getting started looking this over. No hurry on this, if you want to finish up with Bowman first that's totally fine. delldot ∇. 07:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think the last sentence in the lead could use a little fleshing out: what are these "real-life confrontations"?

I edited the sentence to clarify that the author was talking about real life confrontations "between citizens and law enforcement". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• I could crop File:Greyhound Bus Station Tallahassee.JPG to cut out some of the road in front of the station if you want.

If you think that cropping the photo would be helpful for readers, I am definitely in favor of doing so. Thanks for offering to help! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Nah, just prettier. Of course now I'm thinking of cropping it more to make it more standard dimensions... delldot ∇. 07:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Is it customary to always use "Justice" before the name, or would it be possible to drop a few? It's just that it gets kind of repetitive. e.g. "...Justice Kennedy concluded the search was consensual and voluntary.[1] Justice Kennedy also mentioned in dicta that..." and "... Justice Souter concluded that the interdiction 'was not a consensual exercise.' Justice Souter argued that..."

In legal scholarship, it is customary to refer to a Judge or Justice as "Justice Ginsburg" or "Judge Smith", rather than simply by their last name alone. I changed a few of the references to "Justice Kennedy" and "Justice Souter" to "he" in an attempt to break up the repetitive language, but let me know if you still think this needs work. In the previous version, I erred on the side of using "Justice Kennedy/Souter" rather than a pronoun so that readers wouldn't make the mistake of thinking that I was referring to Drayton or Brown. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• The link is good but it might be nice to also have a little parenthetical explaining what a Terry stop is, so the reader doesn't have to leave this article to find out.

I added a new subsection to the "Background" portion of the article to explain the distinction between arrests and temporary detentions. I think it will help readers understand the legal framework of the detentions that occurred in this case. Let me know if you think this needs further clarification. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• The first sentence in Analysis and commentary brings up Bustamonte but there's no mention before about what it is. Maybe a quick summary? Or you could do something like, "...Kennedy's majority opinion held 'that when police request consent to search, the request..."

I added a sentence in the section about the "The Fourth Amendment Consent to Search Doctrine" that describes the ruling in Bustamonte. Let me know if you think this requires further explanation. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

• "One commentator wrote that Drayton 'illustrates the metamorphosis of the totality-of-the-circumstances test into a purely objective test, as well as the bizarre results which the test can produce.'" Is there any further explanation for what the commentator thought was bizarre and why? What does the objectivity of the test have to do with bizarre results?

I expanded the explanation of Phillips' argument. His point was that the Court's decision to ignore Drayton's subjective state of mind (to see whether he felt free to deny consent) will lead to bizarre results in cases, like this, where there is evidence of coercion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• This book has the names of the officers, and the fact that they were from Tallahassee PD, if that would be relevant to include (p. 551). Aside from a few background cases, there's nothing in there that's not covered in this article, which helps satisfy me about its comprehensiveness.

Their names also appear in the Court's published opinion. I went ahead and added their names per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• The critical para in the commentary section is a bit scanty, I wonder if a few sentences could be added. this source calls the idea that people feel comfortable declining police requests a "legal fiction". This one brings up the race and class issues which are somewhat glossed over. This one mentions the post-9/11 Zeitgeist as a contributing factor in the decision (interesting I think, but straying too far from the focus?). This one mentions the stop was part of a Florida "effort to deter the transportation of drugs and illegal weapons." Again I'm not sure if it's important enough to include in the background. Let me know if I can email you any of these.

I expanded the section and incorporated the sources you suggested. Thanks for finding these! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• Image licenses are all fine.
• Well referenced throughout.

Looks great, I have no major complaints! Thanks for all the work that's gone into this! delldot ∇. 07:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Delldot: I think I've addressed all the points you raised above. I also expanded the background section to include more information about other cases that informed the Court's decision, and I included a section about subsequent developments. You might be interested to know that at least one Circuit Court has ruled that it is coercive for police to approach a citizen in a dark alley to ask them questions. In any case, thanks again for your patience with this -- I know I have been very slow responding -- and thanks for your fantastic review! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Couple more

Looks great, everything above is addressed. The expansions are excellent. Just a couple minor things:

• Just to check this impression is right: The placement of this sentence before the bag search info gives the impression that he searched the bag because he was suspicious because of their clothes: Lang observed that Drayton and Brown were wearing "heavy jackets and baggy pants," despite warm weather that day. Did he pay special attention to them, or was he just searching everyone's bags who let him? If noticing the clothes is why he asked to search their person, it might make sense to move that sentence to the top of the next para.

That's a good point. I rearranged the order of the sentences per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Might be good to flesh this concept out with one more sentence or so: Joshua Fitch also criticized the Court for ignoring the impact of "racial disparagement" with respect to an individual's ability to walk away from encounters with police. What is Fitch saying race has to do with it?

I added a sentence to expand Fitch's analysis. Let me know if you think this needs to be explained in more detail. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Missing quotation marks? Fitch also argued that police should provide warnings similar to Miranda warnings that inform citizens of their right to refuse consent", and that decisions like Drayton "consistently [endorse] rules that require citizens to fend for themselves when it comes to constitutional rights.

Good catch! I added the missing quotation marks. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Is 'similarly' the right word here? Seems like opposite ideas are being expressed: Other scholars, such as Ric Simmons, have noted that Drayton reflects "the Court at the midpoint of this evolution, moving from a subjective binary test that focuses on whether or not the subject acted voluntarily, to a more nuanced objective test that focuses on the amount of compulsion used by the law enforcement officer".[74] Similarly, Matthew Phillips wrote that Drayton "illustrates the metamorphosis of the totality-of-the-circumstances test into a purely objective test"

I think they are expressing the same general idea, because the "totality of the circumstances" test looks at the subjective thoughts of the suspect, while the objective test does not. However, I changed the word "similarly" to "additionally" for the sake of clarity. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• There are two hits in the cv detector, looks like it's mostly because there's a lot of quotation from the case itself, which is fine. Other phrases like "writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit" cause a hit but of course are unavoidable. Would you mind taking a look though to make sure nothing is amiss?

I went through the article and changed a few passages that were too close for comfort. However, as you mentioned, there are quite a few passages that involve terms of art (e.g. "consent to search" and "basis for suspecting") as well as direct quotations that turn up as false positives in copyvio detectors. Let me know if you think there is anything else that should be changed. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I went through everything highlighted, changed the wording of a few more, and am satisfied about the rest. (In any case, both of these sites are just quoting from the case, which I believe would be usgov public domain). delldot ∇. 00:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks excellent, this is super close! delldot ∇. 01:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Delldot: Thanks again for your excellent feedback and your eye for detail! Let me know if you have any further thoughts about this article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, I have no further complaints. Neutral, stable, good images, well written, broad yet focused, well referenced. Free of copyright problems AFAICT. Great work again! delldot ∇. 00:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much delldot! And thank you also for your most recent round of copy edits. You have really done an excellent job in this review to make this article much better. Cheers! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)