Police stops can be challenged

[Resident Smart Ass]

Court: Police stops can be challenged


By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — A passenger in a car stopped by police has a right, just as the driver does, to challenge the constitutionality of the stop, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
Monday's unanimous ruling clarified the breadth of the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits police from stopping vehicles without a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Evidence found in the course of an illegal stop usually cannot be used at trial.

The justices reversed a California Supreme Court ruling that said a passenger — unlike the driver — would feel free to leave the car and therefore would not be detained for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.

Writing for the court, Justice David Souter, said that view defies reality. "A sensible person would not expect a police officer to allow people to come and go," he said, stressing that the police show of authority restricts a passenger's sense of freedom. Souter said that most U.S. courts had adopted that view and that the California state court was in the minority.

Monday's decision threw out the conviction of Bruce Brendlin, who was caught with drug paraphernalia after the car in which he was riding was stopped. The officers lacked grounds to pull the car over, and Brendlin argued that the drug evidence had to be kept out of court.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: Monday | California Supreme Court | Fourth Amendment | Bruce Brendlin
In November 2001, two officers in Yuba City stopped the Buick in which he was riding to check the vehicle's registration, although — according to the filings in the case — the officers did not believe it was being operated illegally. During a search of the car, they found items used to produce methamphetamine. Police found a syringe cap in Brendlin's shirt pocket.

Brendlin pleaded guilty to the manufacturing of methamphetamine, subject to his appeal on the question of the search. He was sentenced to four years in prison.

The California Supreme Court had upheld his conviction, saying a passenger "is not seized as a constitutional matter."

Souter said the California court failed to follow cases that dictate that a seizure occurs if a reasonable person thinks he is not free to leave the car. Souter also said the lower court's view could "invite police officers to stop cars with passengers regardless of … suspicion of anything illegal."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ce-stops_N.htm

[lewisipso]

although — according to the filings in the case — the officers did not believe it was being operated illegally.[/URL]

WTF? Then why stop the damn car? Can we say probable cause children?
Even if I could stop a car just to check the registration I wouldn't. Then I have to articulate why I needed to check the registration. Probable cause everytime.

[Jks9199]

I read the case...

The officers either failed to articulate their suspicion at all -- or had no grounds to stop the car. Or both.

All this case did is move the very few states that had said that passengers can't challenge the initial detention of the car onto the same page as the rest of the nation. A bad stop is a bad stop; if you don't have reasonable grounds to detain someone, don't do it. Make it a consensual encounter (I know, not something that you can really do on a traffic stop. But it still applies to other stops!)

[Rhino]

WTF? Then why stop the damn car? Can we say probable cause children?
Even if I could stop a car just to check the registration I wouldn't. Then I have to articulate why I needed to check the registration. Probable cause everytime.

You need reasonable articulable suspicion to stop a car, not PC.

[Standard Dave]

I don't I can stop a car because it is on a road or other public place

To search it I would need reasonable suspicion and use powers under misuse of drugs, police and criminal evidence or terrorism legislation.

Isn't the world a wonderful and confusing place.

[countybear]

I read the case...

The officers either failed to articulate their suspicion at all -- or had no grounds to stop the car. Or both.

All this case did is move the very few states that had said that passengers can't challenge the initial detention of the car onto the same page as the rest of the nation. A bad stop is a bad stop; if you don't have reasonable grounds to detain someone, don't do it. Make it a consensual encounter (I know, not something that you can really do on a traffic stop. But it still applies to other stops!)

+1

[Jks9199]

I don't I can stop a car because it is on a road or other public place

To search it I would need reasonable suspicion and use powers under misuse of drugs, police and criminal evidence or terrorism legislation.

Isn't the world a wonderful and confusing place.

Of course this don't apply to you all...

You can't even figure out that everyone's driving on the wrong side of the road!

[Terminator]

GREAT POST, RSA. Without you, thousands of cops would never no about this.......























........unless they read my post about it on June 19th.

http://www.lawenforcementforums.com/...ad.php?t=17181

[Resident Smart Ass]

GREAT POST, RSA. Without you, thousands of cops would never no about this.......


........unless they read my post about it on June 19th.

http://www.lawenforcementforums.com/...ad.php?t=17181

..not for nothing, I did a search for this topic on LEF and found nothing, but I had a feeling you might have posted