Ban on illegal searches applies to car passengers, high court rules

2007-06-18 15:28:00 PDT WASHINGTON -- Police who illegally stop a car can't hold the passengers for questioning and possible searches, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in a case from Northern California.

The unanimous decision said a passenger has the same right as a driver to argue in court that police had no legitimate reason for a traffic stop.

The California Supreme Court ruled in the same case last June that only the driver can challenge the legality of the stop. If the U.S. Supreme Court had agreed, police who stopped vehicles illegally or at random could have detained any passengers for at least a brief period. Police could have conducted a pat-down search if they had reason to believe a passenger was carrying a weapon, and they could have arrested a passenger if they saw incriminating evidence in the car.

That would have "increased the risk of racial profiling," said Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU filed arguments on behalf of itself, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

The now-overturned California Supreme Court ruling "gave police a free pass to violate the Constitution as long as they focused their law enforcement efforts on the passenger rather than the driver," Shapiro said.

"They could have stopped any car on the highway for no reason whatsoever as long as it had passengers as well a driver," he said. "If they found any evidence of a crime after an illegal stop, they could go ahead and prosecute the passenger without worrying about any Fourth Amendment claim" of an unconstitutional seizure.

Deputy Attorney General Cliff Zall, the state's lawyer, said those fears were overblown.

"I think a policeman knows that if he stops a car unlawfully, any evidence can't be used against the driver, and (the officer) can be subject to a civil rights lawsuit," Zall said.

Writing for the high court, Justice David Souter said in today's ruling that "a traffic stop necessarily curtails the travel a passenger has chosen just as much as it halts the driver."

Even when the apparent reason for the stop is a traffic violation, Souter said, a passenger will expect some police scrutiny, so that any attempt to leave "will be so obviously likely to prompt an objection by the officer that no passenger would feel free to leave in the first place."

The case involved Bruce Brendlin, a passenger in a car that was stopped by a Sutter County sheriff's deputy in Yuba City in November 2001. The officer initially said the car had an expired registration but later conceded there was no valid reason for the stop.

He recognized Brendlin as a parole violator, arrested him and later found drug paraphernalia in the car. After a judge upheld the search, Brendlin pleaded guilty to drug possession and was sentenced to four years in prison. He has already served his sentence, with credit for good behavior, and has completed his parole period, said his lawyer, Elizabeth Campbell.

Today's ruling does not necessarily end the case. Zall, the state's lawyer, said he may still ask the California Supreme Court to rule that the search was legal because Brendlin had a warrant out for his arrest.

The case is Brendlin vs. California, 06-8120. The ruling is available at www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-8120.pdf.