Imagine you are the passenger in an automobile pulled over by the cops. You open the door to get out of the car. What do you think will happen? We all know the answer to that question -- either via the speaker in the squad car, or at the point of a gun, you will be ordered to remain in the vehicle. It is standard police procedure.

So why on earth did the state of California think that the Supreme Court would hold any differently than they did in this case?

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled yesterday that passengers in vehicles pulled over by the police have the same rights as drivers to challenge the legality of the traffic stop when it results in an arrest.

The court said that passengers, like the driver, are "seized" by police when the vehicle they are traveling in is stopped and are thus covered by the Fourth Amendment and allowed to challenge unreasonable searches and seizures.

In the specific case before the court, a California passenger named Bruce Brendlin was charged with drug possession because of drug paraphernalia found in the car in which he was traveling. He 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.

The Supreme Court said that made no sense.

"We think that in these circumstances any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the court. During the case's oral arguments, several justices expressed that opinion.

Now California was one of only three states to have a court precedent that held passengers were not seized in such a situation -- proving that most state and federal judges have, at one time or another, been involved in a traffic stop and are able to recognize from experience what the evidence presented to them shows. That the decision would be unanimous was hinted at back in oral arguments, as several justices hammered the lawyer for the state of California.

Not that Mr. Brendlin will walk away from this case a free man -- the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower court in California to determine if there might be some other basis for allowing the evidence to be used -- such as the fact that as a felon on parole he had a more limited right against warrantless searches.

Posted by: Greg at 11:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 476 words, total size 3 kb.