U.S. Supreme Court Agrees Vehicle Passenger "Stopped" When Driver Is
The United States Supreme Court recently agreed that when police pull over a vehicle, not only is the driver stopped, but so are all of his passengers. See the case Brendlin v. California, Case No. 06-8120 (Decided June 18, 2007).
The State of California argued, in a drug case, that Bruce Brendlin had not been "seized" when a police officer pulled over the vehicle he was riding in. Americans are protected from unreasonable search and seizure by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Evidence obtained during or following an unreasonable seizure cannot be used against a defendant in court.
In the case of a traffic stop, before an officer can pull a car over, he must have a reasonable suspicion the driver or his passenger has committed a crime or violated a traffic law. It has long been understood that at the moment the driver pulls to the side of the road, he has submitted to the officer's authority and he and the vehicle have been seized.
A deputy sheriff had pulled over a vehicle to verify that the displayed temporary license tags matched the car. After pulling over the vehicle, he identified the passenger as either Scott or Bruce Brendlin. While the officer was checking which brother had violated his parole, he observed Brendlin hiding something. A search of Brendlin's person and the vehicle turned up items used to produce methamphetamine. He was charged with possession and manufacture of the deadly narcotic.
At trial, the State admitted the officer did not have good cause to pull over the vehicle. The State argued that the evidence found was still allowable as evidence because the search was carried out after Brendlin was arrested as a parole violator. The court ruled that Brendlin had not been seized until the officer ordered him out of the car. The evidence was allowed into Brendlin's trial and he was found guilty and sentenced to four years in prison. The California Supreme Court agreed that Brendlin was not seized until he was ordered out the car, saying a passenger "would feel free to depart or otherwise to conduct his or her affairs as though the police were not present."
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously disagreed. In 1980, the Court had declared that a seizure occurs when "a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave." Justice Souter said that when a car is pulled over, a "passenger will expect to be subject to some scrutiny, and his attempt to leave the scene would be so obviously likely to prompt an objection from the officer that no passenger would feel free to leave in the first place." It is also reasonable for a passenger to expect that an officer would not allow people to move around in ways that could jeopardize his safety.
The State argued that Brendlin had taken no action to submit to the officer's authority, but just sat there. The Court said submission to authority depends on what the person was doing before the officer made a show of authority. A person sitting in chair (or in the passenger seat) could submit to an officer simply by not getting up and leaving.
The Supreme Court held that because the officer had no legal reason to pull over the vehicle, the State could not use any of the drug evidence found in the car or on Brendlin's person against him in his trial.
