S.D. Watch directs our attention to this U.S. Supreme Court decision, summarized by the Sacramento Bee.
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.
Bruce Brendlin was convicted of drug possession after a sheriff's deputy stopped a car in which he was a passenger in Yuba City, Calif., in 2001.
Brendlin was wanted for a parole violation, although the deputy who ordered the car to pull over didn't know beforehand that Brendlin was in the vehicle. Brendlin appealed his conviction, arguing that the drug evidence should be suppressed because it was found as the result of an illegal stop. l
Todd adds this comment:
Note, my conservative friends—the vote was unanimous by the Supremes. Probable cause may be on life support but it’s not dead yet.
To which I add: yes. Scalia and Thomas and Roberts and Alito joined swinger Kennedy and the Court's still weighty left wing. Contrary to the implicaton of my friend Epp's comment, conservatives are just as eager to limit police powers as liberals. Apparently Bush's appointments have not destroyed the Constitution. I now have Epp's evidence on this.
The original point of the fourth amendment search and seizure language is to prevent government from using its police powers to annoy innocent persons whom the government dislikes. Here the government of California wants to profit from an illegitimate search by arguing that only the driver of the car is protected. The Court reasonably concluded that fourth amendment protections extend also to someone who is riding shotgun. It looks like an easy call to me.
On the other hand, the passenger in question had an outstanding warrant that would have justified his arrest if the police had otherwise known he was in the car. What if he were part of a terrorist cell about to blow up Reno Airport? I humbly submit that the Court would have reache another conclusion.
Recent Comments