Fun with the 4th Amendment!

[Toad]

There's a 4th Amendment case before the SC.

Here are the basics:

Are passengers 'seized' during a police stop?

WASHINGTON — Are the passengers in a car that has been stopped by the police "seized" by the authorities, or are they free to walk away?

The Supreme Court took up that question Monday in a California case that could decide whether passengers are protected from "unreasonable searches and seizures" when officers pull over the vehicle in which they are riding.

Last year, the California Supreme Court gave police more leeway to search occupants of cars they stop when it ruled that drug evidence found on a passenger could be used against him.

The passenger was "not seized as a constitutional matter" when the driver was pulled over, the state court said in a 4-3 decision. Under that reasoning, the passenger had given tacit consent to be searched by staying in the car.

Most of the justices on the U.S. high court said Monday that view did not square with common sense. Several said they would not feel free to walk away if a police officer stopped the car they were riding in. The tenor of their comments suggested the California ruling would be reversed.

OK, you are a SC justice. How would you vote on this one and why? Do a little more research and offer your verdict.

Let's see if we can do this in an intelligent fashion without the usual mudslinging. Just address the question, not the other posters.

OK, yer honor... let's hear it!

[midnight Target]

I wonder how it works for occupants of a house? If the police have a warrant to search a home, can they also search all occupants (temporary or permanent)? I would think that the same rules of search and seizure would apply to the occupants of an automobile.

[Toad]

This is a good piece giving both arguments. Good background before you make your decision, your honors.

Argument Preview: Brendlin v. Califronia on 4/23

[Hornet33]

I believe it comes down to officer safety first. If the officer has a reason for stopping a vehicle, and there is more than one person in the vehicle, the officer should be allowed to search everyone just from a safety standpoint.

What I don't agree with is this. If you have a passenger in your vehicle and that person has illegal drugs on them, or whatever, you can be busted because they were in your vehicle. Doesn't matter if you knew about it or not. I think that's wrong. Bust the person with the drugs, not the owner of the vehicle.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Hornet33
I believe it comes down to officer safety first. If the officer has a reason for stopping a vehicle, and there is more than one person in the vehicle, the officer should be allowed to search everyone just from a safety standpoint.

What I don't agree with is this. If you have a passenger in your vehicle and that person has illegal drugs on them, or whatever, you can be busted because they were in your vehicle. Doesn't matter if you knew about it or not. I think that's wrong. Bust the person with the drugs, not the owner of the vehicle.

Then arent' you diving into the realm of probible cause?  

I would think that if an officer had PC to beleive that the car was being used to commit a crime than ALL of the car would be subject to search to include the occupents

If however, you were stopped for running a stop sign and no PC existed that a crime was being committed or that officer safety was in question than the only thing they are allowed to do is ask for your consent.

On the issue of officer safety:  I would think that if they are searching a vehicle to make the situation more secure than they are not conducting a criminal investigation and thus anything other than weapons would not be admissable under evidence rules as they had no PC to search for them.

IE:  I pull a guy over for speading and ask to search the occupents for guns or knives but find weed instead, the weed was out of the realm of what I was searching for, much like an actual search warrent.

just my $0.02

EDIT:

It is an interesting theory.  Once a car is pulled over for a TRAFFIC violation and has come to a complete stop does a passenger have the right to safely exit the vehicle and keep going?

This is none the less fascinating law.

[Toad]

A-HEM!

Please READ the second link that describes what happened and the arguments made in the lower court.

Then render a decision.

Youse guys are digressing!

Your honor, sir.

[Hornet33]

Originally posted by Toad
This is a good piece giving both arguments. Good background before you make your decision, your honors.

Argument Preview: Brendlin v. Califronia on 4/23

Sorry didn't read the linky first. Just did.

Clearly this guy is either a very smart criminal or has a very good lawyer, BUT all he had to do when the officer asked for his name was to say, "Sir, giving you my name is a violation of my 4th Amendment rights and I choose not to tell you who I am." At that point if the officer persited he might have a case, as it is he freely gave the officer his name when asked. The officer checked it out and found that the guy was wanted for parole violation. At that point his 4th Amendment rights no longer come into play because he has a legal warrant for his arrest and in the course of carrying out that warrant he was searched and contraband was found.

The fact that he was arrested while being a passenger in the course of a routine traffic stop doesn't matter. All the officer needs is a reason for pulling the vehicle over for it to be a legitimate stop and arrest. Burned out tail light, expired inspection sticker, whatever. Doesn't matter.

The guy opened his mouth, told the officer his name and the officer checked it out. Done deal. Toss the sorry drug dealer in jail and be done with it.

On the issue of walking away from a traffic stop if you are a passenger doesn't matter iether. He didn't try to walk away. If he had and the officer stopped him, he might have a case. That didn't happen in this case so his argument is not based on the facts given concerning this traffic stop.

Why this is even going to the SC is beyond me, except it did come out of a California Court. That's the only thing that seems consitent here, land of fruits and nuts looking out for the crooks instead of the law abiding people.

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Toad
A-HEM!

Please READ the second link that describes what happened and the arguments made in the lower court.

Then render a decision.

Youse guys are digressing!

Your honor, sir.

Yes objection is sustained......My post after editing was after I read the facts of the case.

[Gunslinger]

Hornet I think this paragraph dives into what you are stating:

Brendlin’s reply brief chides California’s “seizure” analysis as “result-driven” and reliant upon “untenable extensions” of Supreme Court precedent. First, Brendlin argues, California is wrong in asserting that, under Supreme Court precedent, a seizure occurs only when the specific person whom the officer seeks to apprehend is detained. According to Brendlin, the cases cited by California require only that the police action be intentional; a seizure may occur even when an unintended person or thing is the subject of the detention. Second, Brendlin clarifies that a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes begins when the traffic stop occurs, i.e. when individuals in a car —whether driver or passenger— are subject to the authority of the police officer and other important operations of law. Third, the Court has previously rejected California’s suggestion that a person is not “seized” unless the police willfully use force or direct a show of authority at the person claiming the protections of the Fourth Amendment. Finally, Brendlin argues that — contrary to California’s one-dimensional analysis and characterization of the discovery of the challenged evidence as attenuated — the exclusionary rule applies here because Brendlin’s identity, the discovery of his parole status, and his subsequent arrest and search were all the immediate and direct result of the unlawful traffic stop and the deterrent benefits of excluding the evidence are clear and significant.

He's arguing that the stop itself is a "seizure" in wich case they'd have reason to even ask him his name as he's done nothing wrong....IE passenger of a vehicle.

[Hornet33]

My point of view is this. Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege. The person he was riding with did something to make the officer pull them over. Broke a traffic law, whatever. Stopping a vehicle for a violation on PUBLIC streets and asking for identification from everyone in the vehicle is in no way a violation of anyones 4th Amendment rights. He gave the officer his name, and he had a warrant out for his arrest. The officer did just what he was supposed to do.

The guy is guilty and his rights were not violated in my opinion.

[GtoRA2]

It is all right here for me.

First, California argues that a person is not “seized” unless the police willfully use force or direct a show of authority at the person claiming the Fourth Amendment's protections. Incidental intrusions on a person who is not the subject of police conduct such as those imposed upon a passenger in a car that is subject to a traffic stop, are merely unintended consequences of government action and should not amount to a seizure. In this case, California contends, the police action in stopping the vehicle was directed at the driver, Ms. Simeroth, and any intrusion on Brendlin’s freedom was unintentional and incidental. Second, California argues, a passenger in a car stopped in a normal traffic stop ordinarily would not be “seized” because a reasonable, innocent person would have believed he was free to decline the officer’s requests or otherwise terminate the contact. Third, California argues, there must also be a submission to the show of authority; because Brendlin was merely a passenger in the vehicle being stopped, it was Ms. Simeroth -- not Brendlin -- who submitted to the officer’s show of authority.

If you are stuck there due to government action and can't leave then you have been seized as well.

And later they say any innocent citizen would know they can just leave.    That’s utter crap.  I have no wants and warrants, but I wouldn't just leave. I always figured any attention you brought to yourself including and especially trying to leave would just make them look harder at you as a passenger.

I would rule in favor or Brendlin.

[john9001]

the state police stopped me once for a inop turn signal, all the cop did was hand me a postcard that said i had 30 days to fix the light and have the mech that did the repair sign it and mail it to the state.

thats the way a minor infraction should be handled, no hand cuffs, no body searches, no car searches, no background checks, no drug sniffing dogs, no DUI tests, no fine, or whatever else they could think up.

too many cops want to use a minor traffic stop as a fishing expedition. Maybe they are bored, behind on their quota, over zealous, had a bad day, wanabe barny fifes, whatever.

[Brenjen]

I have seen first hand a vehicle stopped by an officer with a passenger in it who tried to get out & walk away. The officer drew his weapon & ordered both of them to the ground then handcuffed the male. They were both freed a minute or two later because the officer had no real reason to detain anyone, not even the driver. I got to see it all because the stop happened about 50 feet from where the driver was heading; his house, at which I was a guest standing in the yard.

 The officer also ordered me to go back inside the house, but since I was outside before he pulled their car over I ignored him. He got pre-occupied with them & forgot about me. Not all officers are that over the top but some are & if you get out of the vehicle that even a normal officer who is good at his job has stopped even though you are just the passenger, you're taking your life in your own hands.

 I was arrested in Roland Ok. just a couple years ago while riding from a job site with a contractor I didn't know; he was driving & got pulled over.  When we got pulled over I & the fellow in the back seat were both told to stay in the vehicle when he told the driver to get out. He had pot & pills on him & I didn't know it. I had a loaded weapon on me. It all worked out for me & the other guy but it was touch & go there for about 20 minutes.

[lasersailor184]

I don't really understand why it could be ruled either way.  However, I do know that the Coast Guard can stop any vessel on the water and perform a "Safety Inspection."  They do this to vessels they are pretty sure are performing illegal acts.


When, during this "Safety Inspection," they come across drugs or something like that, they then make an arrest for illegal activity.



How legal is this?  (honest question, not loaded at all)

[Hornet33]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
It is all right here for me.

 


If you are stuck there due to government action and can't leave then you have been seized as well.

And later they say any innocent citizen would know they can just leave.    That’s utter crap.  I have no wants and warrants, but I wouldn't just leave. I always figured any attention you brought to yourself including and especially trying to leave would just make them look harder at you as a passenger.

I would rule in favor or Brendlin.

seize       (sçz)  Pronunciation Key  
v.   seized, seiz·ing, seiz·es

v.   tr.

To grasp suddenly and forcibly; take or grab: seize a sword.

To grasp with the mind; apprehend: seize an idea and develop it to the fullest extent.
To possess oneself of (something): seize an opportunity.
To have a sudden overwhelming effect on: a heinous crime that seized the minds and emotions of the populace.
To overwhelm physically: a person who was seized with a terminal disease.
To put (one) into possession of something.
To vest ownership of a feudal property in.

To have a sudden overwhelming effect on: a heinous crime that seized the minds and emotions of the populace.
To overwhelm physically: a person who was seized with a terminal disease.
To put (one) into possession of something.
To vest ownership of a feudal property in.
To take into custody; capture.
To take quick and forcible possession of; confiscate: seize a cache of illegal drugs.
also seise (sçz)
To put (one) into possession of something.
To vest ownership of a feudal property in.
Nautical To bind (a rope) to another, or to a spar, with turns of small line.

v.   intr.

To lay sudden or forcible hold of.

To cohere or fuse with another part as a result of high pressure or temperature and restrict or prevent further motion or flow.
To come to a halt: The talks seized up and were rescheduled.
To exhibit symptoms of seizure activity, usually with convulsions.


He wasn't seized and neither was the vehicle when it was pulled over. They were temporarily detained due to a traffic violation.