SCOTUS: Seize A Car, Seize Everybody In It

BRENDLIN v. CALIFORNIA, SCOTUS No. 06-8120, 127 S.Ct. 2400, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 7897, on writ of certiorari to CA, opinion by Justice Souter, filed 18 Jun 2007.

LONG STORY SHORT: When an officer stops a vehicle, everyone in it is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes, and any passenger or driver has standing to challenge the stop. Binding in the United States.

FACTS: Deputy Brokenbrough drove by a parked car and noticed that the registration had expired, but learned from dispatch that the owner had applied for renewal. Later in the shift, Deputy Brokenbrough saw the same car on the road, displaying an apparently valid temporary operating permit. There was nothing unusual about the permit or its display, but Deputy Brokenbrough decided to stop the car and see if the permit matched it.

While checking the driver's license, Deputy Brokenbrough noticed that the passenger was Defendant, whom he believed to be a parole violator. Deputy Brokenbrough checked with dispatch again and verified that Defendant had a warrant for parole violations. After calling for backup, he arrested Defendant and found a syringe cap on him. Patdown of the driver produced green leafy substance and syringes, for which she was arrested. Search of the car incident to arrest discovered items used for methamphetamine production.

PROCEDURE: California charged Defendant with possession and manufacture of methamphetamine. Defendant moved to suppress all evidence from the search incident to arrest, arguing that no reasonable suspicion supported the initial stop, and consequently the seizure of his person was unreasonable and illegal under the Fourth Amendment. The trial court ruled that the stop was legal and that Defendant was not seized until Deputy Brokenbrough ordered him out of the car and arrested him. MOTION TO SUPPRESS DENIED. Defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four years, reserving his right to appeal the denial of suppression.

Defendant appealed to the California Court of Appeal, which ruled the stop illegal and also held that Defendant was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes at the time of the stop. DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION REVERSED. California appealed to the Supreme Court of California, conceding that the stop was illegal, but arguing that Defendant, as a passenger and not the driver, was not seized. The Supreme Court of California ruled that the driver was the exclusive target of the traffic stop, and not only did Defendant have no ability to submit to Deputy Brokenbrough's authority, but also he could have walked away and gone about his business as soon as the car stopped. Consequently, Defendant was never seized. REVERSAL OF DENIAL OF SUPPRESSION REVERSED. Defendant petitioned for and received a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of the United States.

DECISION: A person is seized, and thereby entitled to challenge the seizure, under the Fourth Amendment when an officer of the government terminates or restrains the person's freedom of movement by means of physical force or show of authority, through means intentionally applied. Accidental collisions are not seizures. Persons who do not submit to authority or force are not seized. In ambiguous situations, a seizure occurred if a reasonable person, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, would not have felt free to leave.

Without question, the driver of a traffic-stopped vehicle has submitted to authority and has been seized. However, the Supreme Court had never directly answered the question of whether the passengers of that vehicle have also been seized. Contrary to the California high court's decision, the Supreme Court held that reasonable passengers in a stopped vehicle do not feel free to leave. Driver and passengers alike have been diverted from the stream of traffic and subjected to police scrutiny, presumably because of the driver's wrongdoing, but possibly because of a passenger's action, e.g., not wearing a seat belt. Reasonable passengers will consider themselves at least suspicious by close association, and would expect the stopping officer to object to their leaving without explanation.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled that officers at a traffic stop may, for officer safety reasons and without reasonable suspicion, order vehicle occupants to remain inside or to get out at the officers' discretion. These rulings have built a societal expectation that everybody in a stopped vehicle, at least a small vehicle as opposed to a bus, must obey the officer or else. Defendant submitted to Deputy Brokenbrough's authority by remaining in the car and not running away.

Here, California conceded that no reasonable suspicion supported the stop, since the car's operating permit appeared to be valid and properly displayed. Defendant's seizure began not with his arrest, but from the moment of the vehicle stop. Defendant's seizure was, to that extent, unreasonable and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Any contrary policy would encourage police to stop vehicles illegally and seize passengers, knowing the passengers could not challenge police actions. VACATED AND REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with the foregoing.

EDITORIAL: I suppose I have to agree. This was a unanimous decision, meaning that even Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and the Dread Chief Justice Roberts ("I Am Here For Your Soooouuul") went along. But all you have to do, as ever, is follow the vehicle around until the driver DOES commit a definite, substantial, and clear-cut traffic infraction. This will happen sooner rather than later if the occupants are suffering from a guilty conscience and then see that a nice policeman is riding their bumper, at a safe distance of course.