Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Car Passengers
Washington Post ^ | 18 June 2007 | William Branigin

Posted on 06/18/2007 3:02:53 PM PDT by Hal1950

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.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: brendlin; donutwatch; duplicate; ruling; scotus; surpremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

1 posted on 06/18/2007 3:02:58 PM PDT by Hal1950
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

Good decision.


2 posted on 06/18/2007 3:09:01 PM PDT by Mariner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

There was debate on this? Odd. Didn’t the police stop the whole car?


3 posted on 06/18/2007 3:12:32 PM PDT by FRForever (http://www.constitutionparty.com - but I hope they endorse Fred.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950
Does this mean no more unconstitutional road blacks ala MADD? I don’t have an issue with a policeman stopping a car where the driver is obviously impaired. But a roadblock says that anyone we stop is guilty.

Also I’m sick and tired of hearing “Where are you going?” Well; I’m an American so I’m going anywhere I damn well please.

4 posted on 06/18/2007 3:12:45 PM PDT by samm1148 (Pennsylvania-They haven't taxed air--yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

Yes, a very good decision.

“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.””

I don’t know where these idiots on the CA SC got their idea from, but if you, as a passenger, try to depart the scene of a traffic stop, you’re going to get held at gunpoint, felony-arrested, thrown in the back of a police car and charged with eluding arrest. “Free to leave,” my arse.


5 posted on 06/18/2007 3:14:20 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

It should also be noted that the individual challenging this isn’t going to go free - he was actually wanted before he was stopped. They’re going to toss the additional charges that were the result of the stop, but he’s still going to jail.


6 posted on 06/18/2007 3:17:16 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samm1148

I was out at about 2am one night driving my wife’s 90 year old grandmother home after a long family party.

Zipping along a 2 lane road bounded by forest preserves at the (legal) 50mph I came around a curve and upon a roadblock that gave me about 100ft to slow to a stop. I was directed with the other traffic into a ‘holding area’ and forced to produce license, registration and insurance.

When they asked where I was going, I angrily said I was driving my wife’s grandmother home.

I was let out of the line where they seemed to be scrutinizing documents, safety equipment on the cars and, through the windows, the contents of the cars.

Trying to find violations.

IMHO it’s as more about revenue generation than it is about ‘safety’


7 posted on 06/18/2007 3:19:09 PM PDT by IncPen (The Liberal's Reward is Self Disgust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

Question....do the police have the right to do a quick search/pat down of the occupants for weapons..to protect themselves?


8 posted on 06/18/2007 3:21:47 PM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hal1950

I am shocked that Scalia voted with the rest on this, based on his past history of never seeing a search he did not like.


9 posted on 06/18/2007 3:25:53 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

Sure - but only if they’re detaining them. Otherwise, the police could search everyone walking by them on the sidewalk in the name of “safety”.


10 posted on 06/18/2007 3:28:04 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
IMHO it’s as more about revenue generation than it is about ‘safety’

Absolutely.

11 posted on 06/18/2007 3:30:42 PM PDT by Gabz (My karma ran over your dogma)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

Cops pull over a car driving suspiciously with 4 young men in it..gang banger types..wearing the hoodies..loose, bulky clothes..you know the drill..they can’t tell them to get out of the car, or pat them down?..If that’s true, we need to take the justices on ride-alongs through LA


12 posted on 06/18/2007 3:31:03 PM PDT by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: IncPen
When they asked where I was going, I angrily said I was driving my wife’s grandmother home.

I would have said it's not your your damn business.

13 posted on 06/18/2007 3:31:28 PM PDT by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: samm1148
Does this mean no more unconstitutional road blacks ala MADD?

checkpoints for impaired drivers are allowed as they are viewed as in line with public policy of protecting against impaired drivers on the roadways. However checkpoints to sniff your car for drug trafficking are not allowed because drug trafficking doesn't have anything to do with protecting the public from unsafe drivers on the roadways.

I think I got that right....

14 posted on 06/18/2007 3:34:49 PM PDT by jdub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

My kid and his friends wear hoodies and drive their old beaters through the nicer parts of town. Why should they be profiled?


15 posted on 06/18/2007 3:36:13 PM PDT by Rb ver. 2.0 (The Republican party of today is the Whig party of 1856.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Rb ver. 2.0
Why should they be profiled?

He doesn't want them profiled, he wants them cavity searched.

16 posted on 06/18/2007 3:41:27 PM PDT by jdub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: samm1148

Yeah, do it on your own road, not mine.


17 posted on 06/18/2007 3:43:08 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
Cops pull over a car driving suspiciously with 4 young men in it..gang banger types..wearing the hoodies..loose, bulky clothes..you know the drill..they can’t tell them to get out of the car, or pat them down?..If that’s true, we need to take the justices on ride-alongs through LA

Driving suspiciously? What does that mean? Was the driver violating a provision of the vehicle and traffic law, or wasn't he? If he was, then the police can stop the car. If they have stopped the car lawfully, then they can ask everyone to step out of the car.
18 posted on 06/18/2007 3:45:10 PM PDT by HaveHadEnough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HaveHadEnough
There's that unmistakable "weave" frequently executed by drunks and druggies.

The other one is the repeated slowdown ~

19 posted on 06/18/2007 3:46:33 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

ping


20 posted on 06/18/2007 3:47:03 PM PDT by KoRn (Just Say NO ....To Liberal Republicans - FRED THOMPSON FOR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson