Difference between revisions of "Brendlin v. California"

Revision as of 19:10, April 17, 2010

blah blah blah

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-In '''''Brendlin v. California''''', 127 S. Ct. 2400 (2007), a unanimous [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic check has a [[Fourth Amendment]] right against unlawful seizure.  The passenger "was seized from the moment [the driver]'s car came to a halt on the side of the road, and it was error to deny his suppression motion on the ground that seizure occurred only at the formal arrest."
+blah blah blah
-Justice [[David Souter]], writing for the Court, reasoned that a reasonable passenger would not feel free to leave from such a stop.  The Court held that:
-:"When a police officer makes a traffic stop, the driver of the car is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The question in this case is whether the same is true of a passenger. We hold that a passenger is seized as well and so may challenge the constitutionality of the stop.
-As a result, the seizure of methamphetamine paraphernalia may be suppressed from evidence if found to be lacking in adequate cause for the search under the [[Fourth Amendment]].
-[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]