Reviewing whether a car's passenger can challenge an illegal traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment. DECIDED
The petitioner in this case was a passenger in a car stopped by
the police. After the police determined that there was an outstanding warrant
for his arrest, he was searched and ultimately brought to court on several
drug charges, despite the state's concession that the stop itself was illegal .
Brendlin moved to suppress the evidence found during the search on the theory
that the initial stop of the car was illegal. The California
Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Brendlin's motion to
suppress, ruling that passengers are not initially seized by traffic
stops and therefore cannot challenge such stops under the Fourth
Amendment. The ruling permits evidence gathered from a concededly
unlawful stop to be used against passengers but not the
driver. In an amicus brief submitted with the NAACP and AALDEF, the ACLU
argued that the state court's holding that passengers are and feel free to leave
during traffic stops mischaracterizes the experience of most car
passengers. Given evidence about racial disparities in stop
and search rates, the ACLU argued that the Supreme Court's failure to reverse the lower court's ruling and uphold
Brendlin's right to challenge an illegal stop would invite racial
profiling by the police and leave victims without a remedy .
The Supreme Court affirmed that passengers are "seized" for Fourth Amendment purposes and as such can challenge the legality of traffic stops.
|
