US Supreme Court says passenger can be frisked

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

usmarine0352_2005

member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,796
.


WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.

The court on Monday unanimously overruled an Arizona appeals court that threw out evidence found during such an encounter.

The case involved a 2002 pat-down search of an Eloy, Ariz., man by an Oro Valley police officer, who found a gun and marijuana.

The justices accepted Arizona's argument that traffic stops are inherently dangerous for police and that pat-downs are permissible when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the passenger may be armed and dangerous.

The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

___

The case is Arizona v. Johnson, 07-1122.



Link to story
Click to expand...






"...frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so." = No real reason to think person has a weapon.


"...pat-downs are permissible when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the passenger may be armed and dangerous." = Reason to think person has weapon.






Seriously, don't these seem to contradict each other, or am I the only one who thinks this?



.
 
It would seem so at first but there is actually a distinction.
If the officer thinks the person is armed he may frisk him, even if the passenger has not done anything to suggest he has committed a crime or is about to. So if the officer notices a strange bulge in the passenger's coat, that would be cause to frisk him.
I'm not too happy about the outcome here but it isnt carte blanche to search auto passengers.
 
don't these seem to contradict each other

only politicians are trained enough to make laws

ours is just to pay for them
 
In a traffic stop situation there is no need for probable cause or reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a Terry frisk. However if the gentleman with the marijuana would not have had the gun on his person, based on the fact that this was a simple frisk for weapons, the officer would not have had the right to pull out the marijuana for the pat down is for weapons only. If an officer pats you down for weapons and feels a small lump in your pocket that in no way resembles a weapon but does resemble that of drugs or paraphernalia, the drugs found as a fruit of said search would be excluded by the 4th amendment. However I feel that no one should possess a weapon along with drugs, misdemeanor or felony.
 
"...frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so." = No real reason to think person has a weapon.



does not equal that even if you close one eye and squint through the other
 
It was a blanket ruling. Any passenger can be frisked on a traffic stop. If they labled it that there had to be reasonable suspicion then over time it would appear that people were being patted down based on race. Reasonable suspicion could be easily obtained when you have a car full of thugs wearing thick baggy clothing while the car was riding around the gang ridden part of town. If it was based on reasonable suspicion then it would appear that the frisk was based on racial profiling. I assure you that if you get stopped for speeding on the highway on your way to work you have nothing to worry about. However if you are in the drug ridden part of town, your probably gonna get stopped and searched.
 
the officer would not have had the right to pull out the marijuana
Click to expand...
I'd say they can, because even though they were checking for weapons, they happened to find drugs. Just like if they get a search warrant for drugs, but happen to find a stolen car.
 
The search in question is for weapons only. Pockets cannot be searched, unless a reasonable person would believe that something felt on the person could be a weapon. If it does not feel like a weapon then it is protected by the 4th amendment.
 
This is really quite outrageous and yet another indignant blow to the private citizen. Right don't get taken away all at once, they get eroded a little at a time. Today it's in the car, next it may be that officials have the right to search your house if they have "Reasonable Suspicion" that something fishy is happening. Not proof, just reasonable suspicion.
 
I can feel your frustration however if you have a job and a legitimate niche carved out of life, you dont have to worry about this ruling. I am a police officer. I make traffic stops all of the time and rarely do I ask the passengers out of the vehicle unless I get a gut feeling. The main time I get folks out of a car for a pat down is if they have been reported to have a firearm, or if they are wearing clothes that make concealability and retrievability very easy or if I believe they are drug dealers who would most likely have a weapon to protect thier interest and elude prosocution. If anyone in the car is making furtive movements I will perform a pat down. Dont think that honest hard working citizens are going to be targeted for random pat downs. This is another case where the bad guys have again kicked the pendulum towards crime control rather than crime prevention. More police officers were killed in 2008 than ever before. The main reason for this is that cops were bound by the 4th amendment to remain in the line of fire but now we have the to reduce the risk of getting shot on "routine traffic stops.
 
I'd say they can, because even though they were checking for weapons, they happened to find drugs. Just like if they get a search warrant for drugs, but happen to find a stolen car.
__________________


you can say it you'd just be mistaken
 
shootistPd27 said:
The main reason for this is that cops were bound by the 4th amendment to remain in the line of fire but now we have the to reduce the risk of getting shot on "routine traffic stops.
Click to expand...

Officers have always risked being shot on routine traffic stops why is it so important now to tear down the law abiding citizens rights. I don't have the figures in front of me but the last stats I read on officer fatalities in the line of duty they were way down.

The last time I checked there is not a single Police Agency in the US that is conscripting for officers, therefore it's voluntary with all the inherent risks. Secondly, ever hear the expression, "Slippery Slope or Camel's nose under the tent flap?". We are definitely on the slippery slope to a police state.
 
You are not understanding me. Even though the law states that as long as there is probable cause to make a traffic stop, the officer, for his safety has the right to get the driver, and all passengers out of the vehicle for a pat down of their outer clothing as to ensure that there are no weapons on the driver or passengers that could be used to hurt the officer. This is a pat down. Not a search. If you dont want to be patted down. Follow the rules of the road and you wont get stopped. If you do get stopped, I assure you that as long as you are not in the wrong part of town doing something that would raise the eye of a reasonable person, no officer is going to search you. Why would it offend someone to be patted down for weapons if they were completely legal. I dont see an officer patting someone down unless they appeared to be other than legal. It is simply for the officers safety and the violators.
 
Why would it offend someone to be patted down for weapons if they were completely legal.


maybe cause they fear it happening when they have a lil victimless crime on them.....its an unfortunate side effect of the war on drugs
 
I can completely understand your position. And quite honestly you sound like an intelligent and sincere LEO who probably would not choose to abuse any authority bestowed upon you. And believe me, I have nothing to worry about anyway, but like the slippery slope comment and my earlier one, it's the idea. Not to be unnecessarily cynical, unfortunately there is the possibility that poor judgment will be used or worse yet misused.

Let me just be clear though... I would WANT you guys to pat down the "Rap Star" with the baggy pants hanging half way down his ass, the $125.00 ball cap on sideways, Timberlands, and Bling on every finger and tooth. :)neener: I can say this but you can't) Point is I understand where your coming from, but it just seems a little arbitrary. I know what you say, but that's just you. I worry about the guys out there who may not think so clearly.

Just my 2 cents.
 
"People love the police when they are being wronged, they hate the police when they are wrong."

True.. but that's not what we're talking about. Don't get offended, your input is valuable. This could be a good discussion.
 
Because it is the first step down that slippery slope and yet another amendment under siege....:uhoh:



"The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. It was ratified as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. The amendment specifically requires search and arrest warrants be judicially sanctioned..." Wikipedia
 
I seem to recall somebody saying something about security... and liberty... and sacrificing one for the other.

Anyone who can justify a Terry coming out of a "35 in a 30" is in the wrong here. No amount of back-and-forth debate will change the minds of the Constitutionally inclined. Judges are human too. They got this one wrong.
 
If you are not doing anything illegal then why worry about getting patted down during a traffic stop?
Personally I dont see a reason for it with every stop, but a simple rule of thumb to live by, if you are not breaking the law then you have nothing to worry about.
If you are in possession of any illegal drugs then you deserve to be caught and arrested. If in possession of firearms and illegal drugs you need to be arrested for sure. If you dont want to do the time, dont do the crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Terry v. Ohio versus Arizona v. Johnson - An expansion of Police Powers
Replies
13
Views
871
Sergeant Sabre
S
M
  • Locked
Car searches revisted by Supreme Court...what does this mean?
Replies
8
Views
859
waterhouse
W
Cavalier Knight
  • Locked
PA Supreme Court: Unconstitutional to ‘Stop-and-Frisk’ For Firearms
Replies
2
Views
848
BSA1
BSA1
J
  • Locked
Gun owners’ guide to the 4th Amendment: Stop and Frisk
Replies
11
Views
1K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
2
  • Locked
New Mexico Supreme Court Rules "Officer Safety" Supercedes Rights
2 3
Replies
64
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top