Supreme Court calls shotgun! Backs up passengers' rights
Let's say you're riding in a car with someone who doesn't exactly heed the letter of the law. Or, hypothetically of course, imagine that you, the passenger, are the law-bender. Now, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling, if the police stop your driver buddy for dodgy reasons, passengers are allowed the same rights to contest the validity of the stop as the driver (and the seizure of any evidence that might have been, ahem, found during the stop).
The case was brought by a man in California who was a passenger in a car that police stopped on suspicion of an expired registration. After the police booked him for parole and drug violations, he challenged the right for the police to make the stop in the first place. It turns out the police didn't have any right to stop the car because they already knew from a previous encounter that day that the car's registration was valid. The Supreme Court agreed that passengers in a car are just as "seized" during a police stop as the driver, and so should have as much right as the driver to call police actions into question. So, ignoring the fact that the man who instigated this actually was violating parole and carrying drugs -- his bad example has made life better for passengers everywhere. Kudos to the guys in the long black robes.
[Source: New York Times via Auto Concourse]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Pep Boys Sux 3:15PM (6/19/2007)
Nah, the court is passyfootin' for the ACLU on this one. And don't tell me the ACLU is out there to protect me.
Reply
Vis 8:29PM (6/19/2007)
This ruling will likely be limited, as most 'pretext' situations involve some real, minor infraction - speeding, car equipment not working, etc.
Still, it is nice to see that my rights in my person, papers and effects don't end simply because I'm not holding onto the steering wheel.
ViktorVaughan 4:09PM (6/19/2007)
I can't roll my eyes hard enough at your idiotic post. The police have no business pulling over a car they *know* has legitimate and proper registration. Passengers should have the same rights extended as the driver when it comes to protection from illegal searches.
Viv 4:00PM (6/19/2007)
All i can say is only in America.
Reply
gwballin 4:09PM (6/19/2007)
"Kudos to the guys in the long black robes."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Reply
Zippy 4:11PM (6/19/2007)
Yay for the Constitution. As for the whiners, this is about the right to challenge a stop. Read your Fourth Amendment. It's kinda important.
Reply
gwballin 4:16PM (6/19/2007)
From another article about the ruling:
"Brendlin argued that the discovery of the evidence was the result of an unconstitutional seizure because police lacked probable cause to make the traffic stop.
But the California Supreme Court said Brendlin had no grounds to make such a challenge because he had not been seized by the police and had given tacit approval to the search by staying in the car rather than leaving the scene."
So in California, if I am a passenger of a car that is pulled over by the police I reserve the right to just walk away. I wonder how long it would take the officer to tackle me if I tried that.
Reply
MikeW 5:19PM (6/19/2007)
I thought I read if you exited the car before a complete stop, you are free to leave.
But how many police supervisors have read that, so what are the chances an average cop knows that?
They would tackle you, and say you weren't wearing your safety [seat] belt.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2047994046826686293&q=how+to+avoid+being+arrested+by+cops&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
MikeW 5:08PM (6/19/2007)
Just ask them[cops]: what kind of car they drive, what kind of house they have, how much money they have in their pension?
Then ask them if they know the definiton of 'official oppresion'
It is good that the people don't have to go that far now.
Reply
Barney 5:58PM (6/19/2007)
This may be the first in California but not in the US. A man was pulled over for a faulty tail light. The officers insisted he open his trunk, only to find a body in it. It was ruled that the officers couldn't insist the trunk being opened on the grounds of a broken tail light. (The body was not a homicide victim and the reasons for moving the body in the car isn't something I recall)
Reply
MikeW 10:43PM (6/19/2007)
All the more reason for LED taillights. A single diode failure is not likely to be noticeable.
Greg 11:41PM (6/19/2007)
Big Brother has gone well beyond protecting America, they have been ruining America.
Thanks to the Supreme Court for saying enough is enough.
Fact - Two of Bush's right wing hard core appointments agreed that the search of passengers was wrong, so it's not just the 'Liberals'.
Reply
Greg 11:42PM (6/19/2007)
Big Brother has gone well beyond protecting America, they have been ruining America.
Thanks to the Supreme Court for saying enough is enough.
Fact - Two of Bush's right wing hard core appointments agreed that the search of passengers was wrong, so it's not just the 'Liberals'.
Reply
miklm 6:33AM (6/20/2007)
Are you aware of this little document we have in America called the Constitution? Apparently not, but it might do you well to go read it and do some research on how it applies not only to you, but to all other citizens of this country.
Today they unlawfully search and seize someone who happens to be a drug dealer. Tomorrow they unlawfully search and seize an innocent person. But I guess that's ok too, because the police are there to protect us, right?
miklm 6:40AM (6/20/2007)
Sorry, my post above was in reply to "Linty" below, not to "Greg". I agree with you, Greg, but the issue has nothing to do with "liberal" or "conservative" -- it has to do with constitutionality, liberty, and freedom which are things that both parties used to uphold. Sadly, I don't think either party or side really cares anymore, its just a huge government power grab.
Linty 12:26AM (6/20/2007)
I cant believe the comments here. The police removed a parole violating drug dealer off the streets and everyone is happy the police have been slammed. Im sure if this was osama or one of his henchmen with a trunk full of explosives people would be singing a different tune....That judge should be ashamed for making america a little more safe for the bad guy again.
Reply
gwballin 10:15AM (6/20/2007)
"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either."
-Benjamin Franklin
John 1:43AM (6/20/2007)
This is an extremely confused area of law. The Court really hasn't figured out what to do in certain situations. In this case, the passenger had legitimate grounds to challenge the stop itself, which is what saved him.
It's more complicated when the stop itself is legal, followed by a questionable search. And if someone is illegitimately in a car, usually he or she will have no grounds to suppress evidence due to an illegal stop or search.
Reply
doglet 1:04PM (6/20/2007)
but the ends always justify the means!
if we all had no rights, then we could catch a lot more criminals!
if you have nothing to hide then why do you care!
all of these are the siren song of the death of democracy.
Reply