Washington – Passengers, like drivers, have a constitutional right to challenge the legality of police decisions to stop cars in which they are traveling, the Supreme Court said Monday.
The case began in November 2001 when a police officer in Yuba City, Calif., saw what he thought was an expired registration tag and pulled over a Buick driven by Karen Simeroth. His suspicion was unfounded, and the temporary tag was valid.
The front-seat passenger was Bruce Brendlin, whom the officer recognized. The officer asked Brendlin to get out of the car and, after patting him down, discovered syringes and a plastic bag with a green leafy substance. That triggered a further search of the car, and Brendlin was arrested and later convicted of making methamphetamine.
The driver was not charged with any offense.
The state has since conceded there was no basis to stop the car.
In court, Brendlin challenged his arrest as the product of an “unconstitutional seizure” by police. But California argued that Brendlin’s conviction should stand because only the driver was covered by Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The state said drivers, not passengers, are the focus of traffic stops.
Brendlin lost before the California Supreme Court, which ruled that a passenger in a stopped car “is not seized as a constitutional matter” and has no grounds for challenging the initial stop.
Justice David Souter, writing for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, disagreed.
“We think that in these circumstances, any reasonable passenger would have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the point that no one in the car was free to depart without police permission,” Souter said. “A traffic stop necessarily curtails the travel a passenger has chosen, just as much as it halts the driver.”
The American Civil Liberties Union and the NAACP backed Brendlin, arguing that a ruling in the state’s favor would encourage police to conduct arbitrary traffic stops to target passengers, especially minorities, who lack the same rights as drivers.
Souter underscored their concern. “Holding that the passenger in a private car is not … seized in a traffic stop would invite police officers to stop cars with passengers regardless of probable cause or reasonable suspicion of anything illegal,” he said.
Most state and federal courts already permit challenges by passengers. California, Colorado and Washington state do not.
Brendlin’s case is complicated by the existence of an outstanding warrant against him, which the state said would have justified a search even if passengers can challenge stops. The Supreme Court ordered California courts to sort out whether his conviction, and four-year prison term, may be sustained on other grounds.
The Los Angeles Times contributed to this report.
