another nail

[wellarmedsmurf]

US Supreme Court says passenger can be frisked
January 26, 2009

WASHINGTON-The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.

Comments

[fionavere]

So are we even bothering with the pretense of "freedom" in this country anymore?

[wellarmedsmurf]

apparently you have constitutional protection unless its inconvenient to the state. otherwise, no.

having said that, I haven't read this case or decision, so the article could be misrepresenting what was actually decided, but it seems pretty straight forward.

[polyanarch]

If you haven't done anything wrong what do you have to fear from the authorities?

[melvin_udall]

This doesn't appear to have changed anything. They still need probable cause for a search. It also does require the crime of a traffic stop to get to that point.

[wellarmedsmurf]

well, in this case the defendant was a vehicle passenger, he had nothing to do with the original stop.

it just makes it even easier for the cops to stop and search you. They don't have to articulate why they thought you were committing or about to commit a crime, they just have to articulate why they thought you could be dangerous or armed. like if you're wearing your cell phone and it causes your shirt to bulge.

[whiskyroses]

speeding or coming to a rolling stop should not be crimes sufficient to warrant searching.

[melvin_udall]

I agree.

[chunchmeow]

[kittles]

An important part that was left out but is included in the decision is the requirement that there must be an articulable reason given why the officer felt the passenger was possibly armed and presently dangerous. This is nothing new btw, and has always been the case.

[kittles]

More info:

The Court has released the opinion in Arizona v. Johnson (07-1122), on whether, in the context of a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, an officer may conduct a pat-down search of a passenger when the officer has an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed and presently dangerous, but had no reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger is committing, or has committed, a criminal offense. The ruling below, which held for the defendant, is reversed and remanded. Justice Ginsburg wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court. The opinion is available here.

The Court has returned often to the constitutional environment that prevails along the nation’s streets and highways when police officers see a traffic violation in progress, and decide to pull over the offending vehicle. In a series of rulings, dating back nearly four decades, it has slowly built up a complex array of Fourth Amendment concepts, most of which have added to the officers’ authority “to control the scene,” as the Court put it again

[wellarmedsmurf]

I was hoping you'd weigh in on this.

I missed this the first time through: "In this particular case, it was assumed that the officer involved had such a reason, but that could be tested when the case returns to Arizona state courts."

I would hope the articulable cause would have to be more than a blue bandanna and prior non-violent conviction?

[kittles]

It should - the articulable cause has to include why, specifically, it was believed he was both *armed* and *presently dangerous*. However, if, say, we are outnumbered, or if a person consents to a pat search, we can also control passenger movements. Oftentimes people just don' t know they can say no when we ask.

[whiskyroses]

fucking commies.