[Infowarrior] - Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Car Passengers

[Richard Forno]

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Car Passengers
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/18/AR2007061800
449.html?hpid=moreheadlines

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."