Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Car Passengers

Fisherman's Worf · Jun 18, 2007

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Car Passengers

By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 18, 2007; 1:04 PM

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously today that a passenger in a vehicle has the same right as a driver to challenge the constitutionality of a traffic stop.

The court decided that when police stop a vehicle, passengers are "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and -- like drivers -- can dispute the legality of a search.

The ruling overturned a California Supreme Court decision in the case of Bruce Edward Brendlin, who was arrested on parole violation and drug charges after a November 2001 traffic stop in Yuba City, Calif. Brendlin, who subsequently was sentenced to four years in prison, appealed his conviction on the grounds that the drug evidence should have been suppressed because the traffic stop amounted to "an unlawful seizure of his person," according to today's ruling.

Although the state acknowledged that police "had no adequate justification" to stop the car, in which Brendlin was a passenger in the front seat, it argued that he was not "seized" and thus could not challenge the government's action under the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure protections. Government lawyers also argued that Brendlin could not claim that the evidence against him was tainted by an unconstitutional stop, according to the ruling.

The California Supreme Court sided with the state in the case, known as Brendlin v. California, reasoning that Brendlin was not seized because the car's driver was the exclusive target of the traffic stop and that a passenger "would feel free to depart or otherwise to conduct his or her affairs as though the police were not present."

The Supreme Court, however, rejected that argument today on grounds that a "reasonable passenger" would not feel free to simply leave the scene of a traffic stop.

Writing for a unanimous court, Justice David H. Souter ruled that "a traffic stop necessarily curtails the travel a passenger has chosen just as much as it halts the driver. . . ." He said a "a sensible person would not expect a police officer to allow people to come and go freely" from the scene of a stop.

The court found that "Brendlin was seized from the moment [the driver's] car came to a halt on the side of the road, and it was error to deny his suppression motion on the ground that seizure occurred only at the formal arrest."

A ruling that a passenger in a car is not seized in a traffic stop "would invite police officers to stop cars with passengers regardless of probable cause or reasonable suspicion of anything illegal," Souter wrote. "The fact that evidence uncovered as a result of an arbitrary traffic stop would still be admissible against any passengers would be a powerful incentive to run the kind of 'roving patrols' that would still violate the driver's Fourth Amendment right."

The American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP made similar arguments in support of Brendlin, arguing that if the Supreme Court ruled in California's favor, police would be able to conduct arbitrary traffic stops aimed at passengers, especially minorities.

Most state and federal courts already permitted challenges by passengers, the Associated Press reported. However, California, Colorado and Washington state did not.

The case originated when a deputy sheriff and his partner spotted a parked Buick with expired registration tags and, upon checking with a dispatcher, learned that an application for renewal of the registration was being processed. When the officers later saw the car on the road, the deputy sheriff decided to pull it over to verify that a temporary operating permit valid through the end of the month matched the vehicle. Police later acknowledged that there was nothing unusual about the permit.

The deputy sheriff, Robert Brokenbrough, saw a passenger in the front seat, asked him to identify himself and verified that he was "a parole violator with an outstanding no-bail warrant for his arrest," today's opinion said.

Brokenbrough then ordered Brendlin out of the car at gunpoint and declared him under arrest. In a search, police found an orange syringe cap on Brendlin and syringes and marijuana on the driver, who also was arrested. In the car, police also found tubing, a scale and items used to produce methamphetamine.

Brendlin was charged with possession and manufacture of methamphetamine. He moved to suppress the evidence found on him and in the car as the fruits of an unconstitutional seizure, arguing that police lacked probable cause to stop the vehicle.

The trial court denied his motion to suppress, but the California Court of Appeal reversed the denial. The case then went to the state Supreme Court, which narrowly overturned the appellate court's decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court said it agreed to hear the case "to decide whether a traffic stop subjects a passenger, as well as the driver, to Fourth Amendment seizure." In vacating the California Supreme Court's judgment, Souter wrote, "We hold that a passenger is seized as well and so may challenge the constitutionality of the stop."
Click to expand...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/18/AR2007061800449.html

Quincunx · Jun 18, 2007

The California Supreme Court sided with the state in the case, known as Brendlin v. California, reasoning that Brendlin was not seized because the car's driver was the exclusive target of the traffic stop and that a passenger "would feel free to depart or otherwise to conduct his or her affairs as though the police were not present."
Click to expand...

Yeah, cops love that! Just get out and walk away!

Liet · Jun 18, 2007

Quas said: ↑

The California Supreme Court sided with the state in the case, known as Brendlin v. California, reasoning that Brendlin was not seized because the car's driver was the exclusive target of the traffic stop and that a passenger "would feel free to depart or otherwise to conduct his or her affairs as though the police were not present."
Click to expand...

Yeah, cops love that! Just get out and walk away!

Click to expand...

Well, the Court has had a lot of supremely idiotic rulings in this area, so it's nice to see them get one right and more than a bit surprising, especially to see a unanimous opinion. If this were a factory and police were guarding the only exits, then workers would feel free to leave during the middle of the work day according to the Court. And while the Court now acknowledges that passengers would not feel free to leave during a stop, it's routinely held that passengers would feel free to say "no" to a police search during a stop. So you might think this ruling was bloody obvious, and you'd be right, but the Supreme Court would disagree and call this a hard case.

The Exception · Jun 18, 2007

I would think that since the passenger was not guilty of any violation of the law that they would be exempt from any searches.

Lt. Mewa · Jun 18, 2007

When I was younger if a the car I was in got stopped and I was a passenger, I would never show id if asked.

I don't have to have a drivers licsense to be a passenger. And if i don't have id on me, I don't have id. Its on the cop to push it if he wants.

His main concern should be the driver unless I do something suspicious or illegal during the stop. Like if you had kids in the back seat. They don't have to show id.

Log in or Sign up

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Car Passengers

Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

Quincunx anti-anti Staff Member Administrator

Liet Guest

The Exception The One Who Will Be Administrator Super Moderator

Lt. Mewa Rockefeller Center

Log in or Sign up

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Car Passengers

Fisherman's Worf I am the Seaman, I am the Walrus, Qu-Qu-Qapla'!

Quincunx anti-anti Staff Member Administrator

Liet Guest

The Exception The One Who Will Be Administrator Super Moderator

Lt. Mewa Rockefeller Center

Useful Searches