home

Supreme Court: Passengers Have 4th Amendment Standing

By Jeralyn, Section Court Decisions
Posted on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 11:43:03 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Supreme Court today decided Breslin v. California (opinion here, pdf) holding that passengers in automobiles have 4th Amendment rights to contest a search and seizure during a traffic stop. The first part of the ruling:

Held: When police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the car, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and so may challenge the stop’s constitutionality. Pp. 4–13.

(a) A person is seized and thus entitled to challenge the government’s action when officers, by physical force or a show of authority, terminate or restrain the person’s freedom of movement through means intentionally applied.

Last Night in Little Rock has more at FourthAmendment.com.

< 2008 Elections: Supreme Court is at Stake | Take Back America Conference Begins Today >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Supreme Court: Passengers Have 4th Amendment Standing | 9 comments (9 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Overzealous Houston Fuzz (none / 0) (#1)
    by dutchfox on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:00:14 PM EST
    Houston Chronicle - HPD still issuing tickets for license plate borders
    Houston police officers continue writing tickets to motorists with brackets bordering their license plates despite a new law passed last month making it clear drivers should be cited only if the plate is significantly obscured.

    Since January, officers have issued at least 9,500 citations for what they considered license plate obstructions -- generally the brackets advertising car dealers or touting sports and alumni loyalties.

    Municipal court records also show that since May 4, when Gov. Rick Perry signed a bill that clarified the existing law, at least 2,200 motorists have been cited.

    The new law doesn't go into effect until September, but the zeal with which tickets have been issued since Perry signed it has angered some of the cited motorists and disappointed the two Houston-area lawmakers who clarified the rules during the recent legislative session.
    As most of us are not lawyers, , (none / 0) (#2)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 12:13:42 PM EST
    and reading legal stuff is about as enjoyable as having a root canal drilled, what does this mean to us civilians in practical terms? During a traffic stop a passenger may drink a beer, smoke a joint, whatever, with impunity?

    It does make your head hurt.... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:36:16 PM EST
    reading legalese.  What a struggle.

    I don't think it goes that far bro, or else you could get away with kicking a cop who illegally stops you in the shins. Having your rights violated by the state isn't a license to commit crime.

    In practical terms, going by Little Rock's 4thamendment.com synopsis, I think it means if a cop illegally stops you and finds a bag of smoke, open container, pick your contraband, that they otherwise wouldn't have found, you can challenge it on 4th amendment grounds and potentially get the charges tossed.  

    In practical practical terms, its pretty damned hard for a cop not to find some obscure legal reason for stopping you.  Whoever caught Breslin must have been lazy and/or unimaginative.  Expired registration was the best they could come up with?  Lame...

    Parent

    This will be big, quantitatively. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 01:25:36 PM EST
    No hard stats, but of the marijuana arrests I've noticed in Wisconsin, perhaps a quarter could fall due to this ruling. Does it have retro-active application, ie new trials?

    What it means ... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:14:34 PM EST
    .. in practical terms, SUO, is that if the police stop a car unconstitutionally -- that is, without even a good reason to think that some traffic infraction has been committed by the driver, much less probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed -- then any evidence seized as a result of the stop, from any of the passengers who were in the car when it was illegally stopped, should be "suppressed," that is, held unusable as evidence in court.

    Thanks Peter... (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:37:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Previously, the U.S. Supreme Court (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 09:51:31 PM EST
    ruled that, unless the passenger had an ownership interest in the vehicle, the passenger had no standing to contest the constitutionality of the stop.  

    Parent
    Brendlin was on parole. Don't (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 09:58:00 PM EST
    think he will ultimately prevail here.

    Thanks oculus.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 09:20:18 PM EST
    I hear that...but it might help somebody else down the line win a battle against Goliath-state.

    Parent
    Supreme Court: Passengers Have 4th Amendment Standing | 9 comments (9 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment