Submit ZIP Code

Got a Quick Question?

(120 characters remaining)
100% Anonymous. Free Answers.

U.S. Supreme Court Extends Fourth Amendment Protection to Vehicle Passengers

The United States Supreme Court has finally given vehicle passengers the same Fourth Amendment protection afforded to drivers. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, Docket No. 06-8120 (Decided June 18, 2007). It has long been recognized that a driver is seized at the moment he submits an officer’s show of authority by pulling his vehicle to the side of the road, but the Court had not ruled directly on whether passengers in the vehicle have the same protection.

Deputy Sheriff Robert Brokenbrough pulled over a vehicle without good cause. The officer recognized the passenger, Brendlin, but could not remember whether he or his brother had jumped parole. After ordering Brendlin out of the vehicle, Brokenbrough searched Brendlin and the vehicle. He found a number of items used to make methamphetamine. Brendlin was charged with and convicted of possession and manufacture of the drug.

The trial court had refused to suppress the evidence, saying that Brendlin had not been seized until he was ordered out of the car. Brendlin’s criminal defense attorney had argued he was seized when the car was pulled over without reasonable suspicion, requiring suppression of the evidence. The California Supreme Court upheld the trial court, opining that a passenger “would feel free to depart or otherwise to conduct his or her affairs as though the police were not present.” Brendlin at 3. 136 P.3d 845, 848 (Cal. 2006).

Justice Souter wrote for a unanimous court. He said “a seizure occurs if ‘in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.’” Brendlin at 4. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980). A reasonable passenger, during a traffic stop, would not believe he was free to leave without police permission; a “passenger will expect to be subject to some scrutiny, and his attempt to leave the scene would be so obviously likely to prompt an objection from the officer that no passenger would feel free to leave in the first place.” Brendlin at 7. United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 202 (2002).

A passenger should also expect an officer to forbid people from moving around in ways that could jeopardize his safety. Brendlin at 7. In fact, the Court held, in Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997), that an officer may order a passenger out of the car as a precautionary measure, without reasonable suspicion the passenger poses a risk. “‘The risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation.’” Brendlin at 7. Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 702-703 (1981).

The Court held Brendlin was seized from the moment the car halted on the side of the road and that it was error to deny his suppression motion on the ground that seizure occurred only at the formal arrest. The case was remanded for further proceedings.


PAID ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT: THIS WEB SITE IS A GROUP ADVERTISEMENT AND THE PARTICIPATING ATTORNEYS ARE INCLUDED BECAUSE THEY PAY AN ADVERTISING FEE. It is not a lawyer referral service or prepaid legal services plan. Total Criminal Defense is not a law firm. Your request for contact will be forwarded to the local lawyer who has paid to advertise in the ZIP code you provide. Total Criminal Defense does not endorse or recommend any lawyer or law firm who participates in the network. It does not make any representation and has not made any judgment as to the qualifications, expertise or credentials of any participating lawyer. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. The information contained herein is not legal advice. Any information you submit to Total Criminal Defense may not be protected by attorney-client privilege. All photos are of models and do not depict clients. All case evaluations are performed by participating attorneys. An attorney responsible for the content of this Site is Kevin W. Chern, Esq., licensed in Illinois with offices at 25 East Washington, Suite 510, Chicago, Illinois 60602. To see the attorney in your area who is responsible for this advertisement, please click here or call 866-200-8052.

FLORIDA ONLY: Total Criminal Defense is considered a lawyer referral service in the state of Florida under the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. By all other standards, Total Criminal Defense is a group advertisement and not a lawyer referral service.

If you live in Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, New York or Wyoming, please click here