Terry v. Ohio versus Arizona v. Johnson - An expansion of Police Powers

[HIcarry]

A recent thread about the January SCOTUS decision in Arizona v. Johnson, was closed, in part, because it seemed, IMHO, that folks were a little confused over the "new" SCOTUS ruling.

Prior to this SCOTUS decision, under the auspices of a "Terry Stop" an officer had to have an articulable suspicion that the actor is, or is about to be, involved in criminal activity, and then further has articulable concern that the actor is armed or dangerous in order to justify a pat down of the outer garments for the sole perpose of ascertaining if said actor is armed.

Now, under Johnson, a person, either driver or passenger(s), may be asked to exit a vehicle, without having suspicion of any criminal activity, and be patted down for weapons if there is a concern about them being armed or dangerous. The difference between Terry and Johnson seems to be that there be no need for the suspicion of criminal activity before the frisk for weapons can be conducted. This, as SCOTUS indicated is indeed an expansion of police authority to search at a traffice stop.

Too bad that previous thread was highjacked with an unneeded full text version of the Terry decision; worse was the fact that someone criticized those involved in the discussion as being uninformed when it appeared the opposite was the case.

There it is, in it's entirety. Too many members get into these discussion who quite frankly don't have a clue about what they are discussing. Then it turns into a circular discussion that goes round and round for 100 or so posts until one of the staff gets tired of it and closes it.

Members have a responsibility to do some basic research before they sit down at the keyboard and pronounce their opinion.

A Terry Search must include the element of suspicion that the person is involved in a crime or about to be involved in a crime. This would seem to me to eliminate the passengers in a routine traffic stop for a minor violation from being removed from the car and patted down under this latest ruling. If the officer couldn't articulate what criminal activity he thought the suspect was involved in when he patted the suspect down for weapons, he would lose any fruits of that search as it would be illegal.

The idea that officers are going to routinely search everyone in every car they stopped is just ridiculous.

Next time do some research so you can come to the thread and make an educated, intelligent post and the discussion will be allowed to continue. This one is done.

Here is the basic question posed to SCOTUS, which they affirmed:

In the context of a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, may an officer conduct a pat-down search of a passenger when the officer has an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed and presently dangerous, but has no reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger is committing, or has committed, a criminal offense?

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-1122

Here's an analysis of the decision:

http://www.scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Arizona_v._Johnson

In an opinion so spare that the Supreme Court did not labor long to produce it, the Justices on January 26 unanimously expanded the control that police can exercise at the scene of roadside traffic stops. The ruling brought an enlargement of “stop and frisk” authority.
The Court has returned often to the constitutional environment that prevails along the nation’s streets and highways when police officers see a traffic violation in progress, and decide to pull over the offending vehicle. In a series of rulings, dating back nearly four decades, it has slowly built up a complex array of Fourth Amendment concepts, most of which have added to the officers’ authority “to control the scene,” as the Court put it again on Monday in further expanding that power.

That expansion has been based, in large part, on the Court’s concern that there is a considerable risk that any traffic stop could quickly escalate into “a violent encounter,” because more crime may actually be afoot than merely a violation of traffic laws, and driver or passengers may want to prevent its detection. That was the rationale the Court used again in deciding Arizona v. Johnson (07-1122).

With fewer than four full pages of analysis in a nine-page opinion, the Court decided that police may order a passenger out of a stopped vehicle, and then conduct a “pat-down search” (a frisk) if they have reason to believe that the rider may be armed and dangerous. (In this particular, it was assumed that the officer involved had such a reason, but that could be tested when the case returns to Arizona state courts.)

The case involved a gang patrol by officers who were checking out a suspect neighborhood in Tucson. When a car passed, one officer ran a check on the license plate, and discovered that the insurance on that vehicle had been suspended. So, while there was no suspicion of any other crime, the officers stopped the vehicle. Officer Maria Trevizo engaged the back-seat passenger, Lemon Montrea Johnson, in conversation, and began talking with him after noticing he was wearing what she considered to be something of a gang emblem, a blue bandanna.

She learned he was from the town of Eloy, the site of prominent gang activity, and that he had done time on a burglary conviction. She ordered him out of the car, and frisked him, finding a gun located near his waist. She then handcuffed him. He was charged with illegal gun possession (among other offenses), and was convicted on that charge. An Arizona appeals court threw out the conviction, finding that Officer Trevizo had no right to pat-down passenger Johnson, since she had no reason to believe he had committed any crime.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ran over the Court’s past precedents dating back to Terry v. Ohio in 1968, and concluded that the “combined thrust” of the past rulings was that officers who conduct routine traffic stops may perform a frisk of a driver and any passenger if they had “reasonable suspicion that they may be armed and dangerous.” The opinion then went on to conclude that the principle would now be made clear cut Fourth Amendment law.

If the traffic stop is not unduly prolonged by search activity following the initial stop, the opinion said, it has not been concluded for Fourth Amendment purposes until the police have completed exercising control of the scene — including a frisk when they believe someone in the vehicle may be armed and dangerous.

 

[Jeff White]

Since when is gang clothing not an indicator of possible involvement in criminal activity based on the police officer's experience and knowledge as in the original Terry ruling? It seems that you are unable to understand the original Terry decision and why this is not an unreasonable expansion of it. I rather doubt that the court is going to support the pat down search of everyone in a car if there is no reasonable suspicion the person is armed and dangerous.

This decision clarifies Terry and may have some effect on state laws especially here in Illinois where in 2003 the state supreme court greatly limited what contact an officer could have with a passenger on a routine traffic stop, specifically asking for ID and running the passengers through NCIC without a reasonable suspicion that they were wanted. The standard of reasonable suspicion that the subject is armed and dangerous was part of the original Terry decision. Remember in Terry the search is only for weapons. You can't search for any evidence that the subject is involved in criminal activity.

All of the patriots and heroes of the revolution can run out and buy more tinfoil if they want, but this decision is not free reign to search everyone in a car.

Of course you have to understand how it all fits together, which means you have to understand Terry in the first place, which most people here obviously don't.

 

[HIcarry]

Since when is gang clothing not an indicator of possible involvement in criminal activity based on the police officer's experience and knowledge as in the original Terry ruling?

I never said it wasn't...actually, I didn't comment on it. The wearing of "gang clothing," in this case the color blue, may or may not be part of the whole picture that leads one to believe that criminal activity is afoot. In and of itself, it is not. If it were, you'd have the right to stop and frisk all manner of teen suburbinites wanna-bes.

It seems that you are unable to understand the original Terry decision and why this is not an unreasonable expansion of it.

I understand it enough that under Johnson the requirement that an officer be able to articulate why s/he thought a crime was imminent or underway is now not necessary, only that there is a concern someone is armed and/or dangerous. I also never commented on whether or not I thought it was "an unreasonable expansion."

I rather doubt that the court is going to support the pat down search of everyone in a car if there is no reasonable suspicion the person is armed and dangerous.

It would seem you don't seem to understand the ruling. Johnson does not remove the need to articulate a concern about someone being armed or dangerous. In Terry, you needed to articulate a reason a crime was underway (or had been, or was about to be commited) before stopping someone. Now, under Johnson, there is no need to have a suspicion of a crime as a predicate to an investagative stop. A simple traffice stop (an infraction, not a crime) would suffice.

This decision clarifies Terry and may have some effect on state laws especially here in Illinois where in 2003 the state supreme court greatly limited what contact an officer could have with a passenger on a routine traffic stop, specifically asking for ID and running the passengers through NCIC without a reasonable suspicion that they were wanted.

It does more than "clarify" it expands Terry.

The standard of reasonable suspicion that the subject is armed and dangerous was part of the original Terry decision. Remember in Terry the search is only for weapons. You can't search for any evidence that the subject is involved in criminal activity.

No, the standard in Terry was that the officer had to have an articulatable suspicion that a crime was underway (or about to be commited) as a premise for the brief investigatory stop. If, based on that initial investigation there was no suspicion of a crime, a frisk was not warranted.

And, despite the intended limited purpose of searching for a weapon, the fact is that under the plain touch doctrine, other illegal items can, and are routinely seized and admitted as evidence, even if no weapon is ever discovered.

When a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him or her to reasonably suspect criminal activity may be occurring and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, the officer might approach and briefly detain the subjects for the purpose of conducting a limited investigation. The officer must identify himself or herself as a police officer and may make reasonable inquiries. If after initial investigation the officer still has a reasonable fear for the safety of himself and others, the officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing in an attempt to discover weapons that might be used to assault him or her.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terry-stop/

All of the patriots and heroes of the revolution can run out and buy more tinfoil if they want, but this decision is not free reign to search everyone in a car.

Sarcasm aside, you are correct. But, it does, without question, expand the powers of the police to search persons and, arguably, is another example of the slow errosion of personal liberties and rights. The same type of incremental encroachment many here associate with firearms rights.

Of course you have to understand how it all fits together, which means you have to understand Terry in the first place, which most people here obviously don't.

I do understand, as I would imagine many others do. But, I thought this forum was a chance to learn and have a reasoned discourse on issues relating to guns and gun rights. It is not unreasonable to assume the ability of the legal system to slowly eliminate one right may lead to similar actions/decisions for other rights. I personally come here to learn from those that know more than I. What I don't expect is the arrogant and patronizing attitude from those ostensibly here to help their fellow "gunnies" with that education. Just because someone happens to disagree with you, or interpret complex issues in a different manner, does not necessarily mean they are uneducated on the subject or need to do some research before posting an opinion (although that would be useful...). If the sole measure of correctly understanding an issue were consensus on the subject, wouldn't that mean split court decisions indicated some of the justices didn't understand the subject matter?

 

[Jeff White]

It would seem you don't seem to understand the ruling. Johnson does not remove the need to articulate a concern about someone being armed or dangerous. In Terry, you needed to articulate a reason a crime was underway (or had been, or was about to be commited) before stopping someone. Now, under Johnson, there is no need to have a suspicion of a crime as a predicate to an investagative stop. A simple traffice stop (an infraction, not a crime) would suffice.

I don't see anything in Johnson that authorizes an investigative stop without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In many jurisdictions a traffic offense is a crime, albeit a minor one. Here in Illinois I can take you to the county jail and book you for speeding or running a stop sign, then you can post your bond under the uniform bond rules. Why don't point out the part of Johnson that says you can make an investigative stop without being able to articulate a reasonable suspicion that a crime is, has been or is about to be committed? I don't see it. What I see is the power to conduct a pat down search for weapons of someone you can articulate a reasonable suspicion that is armed and dangerous. Specifically, a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation.

Traffic stops are violations of the law. This ruling gives the officer the ability to conduct a pat down search of the other occupants of the vehicle if he can articulate a reasonable suspicion that that person may be armed and dangerous. Nothing more. It doesn't give the officer the right to expand the scope of the stop into some other investigation on a fishing expedition. In fact the ruling states that the pat down search can't extend the length of the contact for an unreasonable about of time.

What I don't expect is the arrogant and patronizing attitude from those ostensibly here to help their fellow "gunnies" with that education. Just because someone happens to disagree with you, or interpret complex issues in a different manner, does not necessarily mean they are uneducated on the subject or need to do some research before posting an opinion (although that would be useful...). If the sole measure of correctly understanding an issue were consensus on the subject, wouldn't that mean split court decisions indicated some of the justices didn't understand the subject matter?

Perhaps if you did a search on these kinds of subjects and looked through all of the long closed threads, and read the posts, you'd understand why discussions on those subjects are seldom allowed to run at all and when they are, they are heavily moderated. And why the staff cringes every time someone starts a thread on a subject that. Years ago when we were a small forum, people actually researched things before they posted. Now we can't have a civil discussion on them at all, because everyone wants to throw in his uneducated opinion and won't research his own side much less the other side.

 

[leadcounsel]

it does, without question, expand the powers of the police to search persons and, arguably, is another example of the slow errosion of personal liberties and rights. The same type of incremental encroachment many here associate with firearms rights.

+1

Nearly all of our 4th and 2nd Amendment infringements center around ONE ITEM - DRUGS. Although if memory serves, Terry was a robbery, most of the infringments center around Drugs. And guns tend to follow drug dealers, who tend to be nervous and violent.

Maybe we should re-evaluate the intelligence with which we are willing to fight and sacrifice our liberties for the unsuccessful 'war on drugs.' We have given up liberties time and again to fight this war, to ill effect.

Maybe we should stop criminalizing it, legalize it, and that would resolve the problem of trafficking in drugs and ultimately violent gun crimes and ultimately the need for Terry and Johnson type rulings.

Bottom line, if you drive a car or are a passenger you are subject to a full search.

I forsee the day in the next decade or so where large microwaves monitor all people in public for drugs (and weapons) for our 'safety.'

Can you say 1984?

 

[HIcarry]

I don't see anything in Johnson that authorizes an investigative stop without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. In many jurisdictions a traffic offense is a crime, albeit a minor one. Here in Illinois I can take you to the county jail and book you for speeding or running a stop sign, then you can post your bond under the uniform bond rules. Why don't point out the part of Johnson that says you can make an investigative stop without being able to articulate a reasonable suspicion that a crime is, has been or is about to be committed? I don't see it. What I see is the power to conduct a pat down search for weapons of someone you can articulate a reasonable suspicion that is armed and dangerous. Specifically, a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation.

Here's one...

The State of Colorado therefore decriminalized minor traffic violations, and pursuant to CRS 16-6-501 the Supreme Court established the Colorado Rules of Traffic Infractions - CRTI. Since the possibility of jail was eliminated, criminal jury trials were no longer a matter of right...

Here's part of the discussion about Johnson:

In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a pat-down search conducted by a police officer does not violate an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights if the officer reasonably believes“that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous . . . .” Terry v. Ohio,392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968) (emphasis added). In this case, the Court will address whether suspicion of criminal activity is always a requirement for a pat-down search, or whether pat-down searches are valid in any reasonable circumstances when a police officer has a concern for her safety....This case concerns a police officer’s right to search an individual for weapons based solely on the officer’s reasonable belief that the individual may be armed and dangerous, without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. CONST. amend. IV. In general, an officer may conduct a “limited search of the outer clothing” of an individual without a search warrant if the officer reasonably believes “that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous . . . .” Terry, 392 U.S. at 30 (emphasis added).

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-1122

Speaking of research....took me all of 30 seconds to refute your argument that there is nothing in Johnson that would allow a search, with appropriate articulatable concerns for a weapon, absent a "crime" being suspected. Many states have decriminalized minor traffic infractions, therefore not all traffic offenses are "crimes" and therefore being stopped for such a "minor" offense that would not rise to criminal status would subject the driver and passenger to a search, under the applicable requirements of Johnson.

Traffic stops are violations of the law. This ruling gives the officer the ability to conduct a pat down search of the other occupants of the vehicle if he can articulate a reasonable suspicion that that person may be armed and dangerous. Nothing more. It doesn't give the officer the right to expand the scope of the stop into some other investigation on a fishing expedition. In fact the ruling states that the pat down search can't extend the length of the contact for an unreasonable about of time.

No, sometimes they are violations of administrative rules, which may have the weight of law, but are not criminal offenses.

Perhaps if you did a search on these kinds of subjects and looked through all of the long closed threads, and read the posts, you'd understand why discussions on those subjects are seldom allowed to run at all and when they are, they are heavily moderated. And why the staff cringes every time someone starts a thread on a subject that. Years ago when we were a small forum, people actually researched things before they posted. Now we can't have a civil discussion on them at all, because everyone wants to throw in his uneducated opinion and won't research his own side much less the other side.

I have. And I have read many and participated in a few such threads....sometimes they do go off in the wrong direction, and moderator intervention is both warranted and appreciated. However, and with all due respect, sometimes the subject matter seems to touch raw nerves with some moderators and sometimes this is all too obvious by those moderators replies, name calling, and locked threads. This, IMHO, is a clear example. The discussion started off on Johnson, which led to a long, multi-part post on Terry, ending with an admonisment that folks do their research before posting, even though one post prior to your closure specifically asked to get back on topic with a discussion on Johnson. Subsequent responses included calling anyone concerned with the possible implications of this case on fourth amendment rights, and possibly other rights, as crazy, tin-foil wearing extremists.

Jeff, I appreciate the dangerous nature of police work...my brother was a cop and I have many friends "on the job." I support efforts to make your, and their job safer. At the same time, I also realize that there are legitimate concerns with this ruling in regards to the personal liberties and rights we have come to expect. Yes, there will be some misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the ruling. Some may agree with it, some may not. Either group may come to their conclusions based on incomplete or inaccurate information. Therein lays the problem...if we can't discuss it to dispel the inaccuracies for fear of it going off track, or if the thread is closed prematurely because posts indicate some folks don't understand, how can we educate them? How often, in promoting gun rights have you had to repeat the same reasoned response to the same ill-informed or inaccurate statement? I would suspect it has been often, I know I find myself repeating the same info to different folks who are "anti" all the time. Let's give our forum members the same opportunity to learn regardless of past problems.

 

[HIcarry]

Nearly all of our 4th and 2nd Amendment infringements center around ONE ITEM - DRUGS. Although if memory serves, Terry was a robbery, most of the infringments center around Drugs. And guns tend to follow drug dealers, who tend to be nervous and violent.

Yep, Terry involved 3 guys who were probably going to rob a store...it did set a precedent for Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983). In an opinion citing Terry written by Justice O'Connor, the Supreme Court ruled that car compartments could be constitutionally searched if an officer had reasonable suspicion.

The scope of Terry was extended in the 2004 Supreme Court case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), which held that a state law requiring the suspect to identify himself during a Terry stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibitions of unreasonable searches and seizures or the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.

As to the war on drugs, I always have to point out that each year we spend more money on the issue, and seem to have the same level of importation and abuse...that's where I get my sig line...

 

[Jeff White]

Speaking of research....took me all of 30 seconds to refute your argument that there is nothing in Johnson that would allow a search, with appropriate articulatable concerns for a weapon, absent a "crime" being suspected. Many states have decriminalized minor traffic infractions, therefore not all traffic offenses are "crimes" and therefore being stopped for such a "minor" offense that would not rise to criminal status would subject the driver and passenger to a search, under the applicable requirements of Johnson.

But you didn't refute anything. A stop for a traffic violation if it's a crime in that jurisdiction or not, is not an investigative stop. You still must be able to articulate reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to make an investigative stop. For example, it's 2:30 am and a car drives down the driveway of an unoccupied home with it's lights off, turns onto the main road, drives a block then turns the lights on. You would have reasonable suspicion to stop that vehicle and inquire about what they were doing around that unoccupied house at 2:30 am. That's an investigative stop. I don't see where Johnson addresses that at all.

Quote:
Traffic stops are violations of the law. This ruling gives the officer the ability to conduct a pat down search of the other occupants of the vehicle if he can articulate a reasonable suspicion that that person may be armed and dangerous. Nothing more. It doesn't give the officer the right to expand the scope of the stop into some other investigation on a fishing expedition. In fact the ruling states that the pat down search can't extend the length of the contact for an unreasonable about of time.

No, sometimes they are violations of administrative rules, which may have the weight of law, but are not criminal offenses.

Infraction, administrative rule...it doesn't matter, a violation is probable cause to stop the person. It's not an investigative stop. What the ruling says is that an officer can, if he can articulate a reasonable suspicion that an occupant of the vehicle is armed and dangers, conduct a pat down search for weapons of the occupant (s) without having to expand the scope of the stop into a criminal investigation. I hesitate to say this, but the exact thing that the court just recognized in Johnson, has been going on since Terry.

 

[HIcarry]

Infraction, administrative rule...it doesn't matter, a violation is probable cause to stop the person. It's not an investigative stop. What the ruling says is that an officer can, if he can articulate a reasonable suspicion that an occupant of the vehicle is armed and dangers, conduct a pat down search for weapons of the occupant (s) without having to expand the scope of the stop into a criminal investigation...

It does matter if you go back to your original assertion that Johnson didn't allow you to pull someone out of the car for a minor traffic infraction:

A Terry Search must include the element of suspicion that the person is involved in a crime or about to be involved in a crime. This would seem to me to eliminate the passengers in a routine traffic stop for a minor violation from being removed from the car and patted down under this latest ruling. If the officer couldn't articulate what criminal activity he thought the suspect was involved in when he patted the suspect down for weapons, he would lose any fruits of that search as it would be illegal.

I hesitate to say this, but the exact thing that the court just recognized in Johnson, has been going on since Terry

And therein lays some of the problems. Under Terry, police were required to articulate suspicion of some sort of criminal activity, do an investigation, and then, and only then, if concerns about the subject being armed were not asuaged, conduct a pat down for weapons. So now, under Johnson, actions that were questionably compliant with Terry have been legitimized and no requirement to articualte suspicion of criminal activity is needed to search (assuming an articulatable concern over the presence of weapons). So, concerns that further intrusions, via questionable practices under Johnson may in the future be legitimized in subsequent decisions are not entirely unfounded.

 

[Jeff White]

It does matter if you go back to your original assertion that Johnson didn't allow you to pull someone out of the car for a minor traffic infraction:

When did I say that? I believe I said that Johnson didn't let you pull someone out of the vehicle and pat them down without the ability to articulate a reasonable suspicion that person was armed and dangerous. An officer can ask anyone to get out of the vehicle if he thinks it's necessary.

 

[HIcarry]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=430071&page=3

Quote:
A Terry Search must include the element of suspicion that the person is involved in a crime or about to be involved in a crime. This would seem to me to eliminate the passengers in a routine traffic stop for a minor violation from being removed from the car and patted down under this latest ruling. If the officer couldn't articulate what criminal activity he thought the suspect was involved in when he patted the suspect down for weapons, he would lose any fruits of that search as it would be illegal.

Did I misunderstand you?

 

[Jeff White]

Did I misunderstand you?

No, you left out the key part...and patted down. The search is what Johnson is ruling on, not the removal from the car. Subjects are removed from the car for various reasons and not patted down. Johnson didn't address that at all.

For instance I was working one night and stopped a pickup for speeding. The driver had the cab of the truck full of guns. (he was moving). I asked him and his girlfriend to exit the vehicle and sit in my car while I finished the enforcement action. I was alone and would be unable to write a warning ticket and watch them both. No one was patted down. All perfectly legal.

 

[HIcarry]

No, you left out the key part...and patted down. The search is what Johnson is ruling on, not the removal from the car. Subjects are removed from the car for various reasons and not patted down. Johnson didn't address that at all.

Yes, I was somewhat inarticulate in my phrasing, but I included in both posts direct quotes where you say you didn't think Johnson would allow you to pull someone out of a vehicle stopped for a minor violation and be patted down.

Quote:
A Terry Search must include the element of suspicion that the person is involved in a crime or about to be involved in a crime. This would seem to me to eliminate the passengers in a routine traffic stop for a minor violation from being removed from the car and patted down under this latest ruling. If the officer couldn't articulate what criminal activity he thought the suspect was involved in when he patted the suspect down for weapons, he would lose any fruits of that search as it would be illegal.

I apologize if I was unclear. It appears that at best, at least for now, our disagreement hinges on the definition of "criminal activity," and how a traffic stop fits into our respective definitions. So, in an effort not to beat the proverbial dead horse, let's agree to disagree...as I said, I think the ultimate purpose of this forum is to share knowledge...you have your perspective, which is based on lots of real world experiences and opinions formed while dealing with the criminal elements. I have my perspectives from my own experiences. I would venture a guess that overall, we'd agree on more things than we'd disagree on. Seems like maybe this is one of those....Thanks for the discussion and the opportunity to learn from your experiences. I think many folks here will appreciate the opportunity to learn more about this recent, and controversial, decision.
Aloha

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

Bottom line, if you drive a car or are a passenger you are subject to a full search.

That's just ignorant.