Passenger Standing and Terry. Arizona v. Johnson.

14923509448691552913892-e1492394121118

Brief Brief  Arizona v. Johnson 555 U.S. 323 (2009).

Issue:  Passenger standing to challenge traffic stop and Terry search.

Quotes:

“This case concerns the authority of police officers to “stop and frisk” a passenger in a motor vehicle temporarily seized upon police detection of a traffic infraction.” Id. at 326.

“For the duration of a traffic stop, we recently confirmed, a police officer effectively seizes ‘everyone in the vehicle,’ the driver and all passengers. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 255, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 168 L.Ed.2d 132 (2007). Accordingly, we hold that, in a traffic-stop setting, the first Terry condition—a lawful investigatory stop—is met whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation. The police need not have, in addition, cause to believe any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity. To justify a patdown of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous.” Id. at 327.

“Completing the picture, Brendlin held that a passenger is seized, just as the driver is, ‘from the moment [a car stopped by the police comes] to a halt on the side of the road.’ 551 U.S., at 263. A passenger therefore has standing to challenge a stop’s constitutionality. Id., at 256–259.” Id. at 322.

“After Wilson, but before Brendlin, the Court had stated, in dictum, that officers who conduct ‘routine traffic stop[s]’ may “perform a ‘patdown’ of a driver and any passengers upon reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous.’ Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 117–118, (1998).” Id.

About Site Administrator: Paul Notarianni

Feel free to view and download any of the content on this site IF you accept the following conditions: 1) You agree to not forward or distribute any of the content of this site for profit or financial gain. 2) You understand that this site and all of its content is for informational purposes only. 3) You understand that the Western Maryland Advocate is not an advertisement, no legal services of any kind are being offered. 4) You understand that no attorney-client relationship exists simply by nature of viewing this site and downloading/viewing its contents. 5) You understand that nothing on this site or downloaded from it should be used as an alternative to discussing your case with a competent licensed attorney in your particular jurisdiction. 6) You understand that the Western Maryland Advocate is an independent experiment. In other words, this site is in no way, whatsoever, affiliated with any government agency or law firm. 7) You understand that no warranty or guarantee is made that the information on this site or the content posted on it is accurate, up to date, or current. 8) You understand that the Western Maryland Advocate is not responsible for the content on any associated link or advertisement. Paul J. Notarianni is the administrator for the Western Maryland Advocate. He is licensed to practice law in the State of Maryland and may be contacted at Paulnotarianni@gmail.com
This entry was posted in - 4th Amendment, - Criminal Law, -- B.B.'s. Brief Briefs. Bookmark the permalink.