|
U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Privacy Interests of Passenger
By Jack Ryan
The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to
hear oral argument in April on
another case impacting law enforcement operations.
*1
The case concerns whether
a passenger in a vehicle which has been unlawfully
stopped can challenge the
basis of the stop when evidence is discovered relative
to the passenger. In other
words, does the passenger have an expectation in a
vehicle they have been riding
in, such that they can challenge the stop?
Bruce Brendlin was a passenger in a
vehicle
driven by Karen Simeroth when
the vehicle was stopped at 1:40 in the morning on
November 27, 2001. Deputy
Brokenbrough had observed Simeroth’s
1993 Buick with expired tags. Prior
to the stop he had run the vehicle registration and
determined that an application
for registration was in progress and the vehicle has a
temporary tag indicating
that the temporary registration expired at the end of
November. Notwithstanding
all indications that this vehicle was registered,
Deputy Brokenbrough decided
to stop the vehicle because he could not determine if
the temporary tag matched
the vehicle. It was subsequently determined that this
stop was bad due to the
evidence that the vehicle did, in fact, meet the
registration requirements.
Upon stopping and approaching the vehicle,
Deputy Brokenbrough observed a
passenger that he knew to be one of the Brendlin
brothers. He was also aware
that one of the Brendlins, either Scott or Bruce, had
skipped out on his parole.
The officer asked Brendlin his name, at which time
the subject lied and stated
his name was Bruce Brown. While at the vehicle,
Deputy Brokenbrough observed
receptacles in the vehicle that contained substances
used for the manufacture
of methamphetamine. Brokenbrough returned to his
police vehicle and verified
that Bruce Brendlin was a parole violator and had a
no-bail warrant. At one
point, while waiting, Brendlin opened the door of the
Buick but then closed
it again. Brokenbrough then called for back-up and
took Brendlin out at gunpoint,
arresting him for the parole violation warrant.
Upon a search incident to
arrest the officer found
the cap from a syringe
in Brendlin's pocket, two syringes in the car,
marijuana and methamphetamine
on Simeroth. Materials used for the manufacture of
methamphetamine were found
in the backseat. When the trial court refused to
suppress the evidence as to
Brendlin, he pled guilty to methamphetamine
manufacturing charges. His argument
for suppression had been that the stop of the vehicle
was illegal, therefore
he was unlawfully seized and the evidence found as
a result of the bad stop
and seizure was the fruit of the poisonous tree. The
trial court, in refusing
to suppress the evidence found that Brendlin, as a
passenger, had been free
to leave at any point during the stop and this had not
been seized until after
the officer recognized him as a parole violator and
placed him under arrest.
The Court of Appeal for California reversed the trial
court and concluded that
the evidence should have been suppressed. This led
to an appeal in the California
Supreme Court, which sided with the trial court and
held that the evidence
was good. Brendlin is now appealing that decision to
the United States Supreme
Court.
The California Supreme Court noted in its
decision that the United States
Supreme Court has never ruled on whether a
passenger is seized at the point
a driver of a vehicle is pulled over. They noted a split
of the lower courts
on this issue. The court asserted that the proper
inquiry comes from the United
States Supreme Court's decision in Florida v.
Bostick *2 where the Court
concluded that “the proper inquiry is
‘whether, taking into account
all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter,
the police conduct would
have communicated to a reasonable person that he
was not at liberty to ignore
the police presence and go about his business.' "
The court further explained
that the type of seizure
contemplated by a traffic
stop is a show of authority seizure. These seizures
require a law enforcement
show of authority and submission. The California
Supreme Court observed that
since passengers are not in control of the vehicle
they cannot possibly submit
to the show of authority and therefore they are merely
observers. Additionally
the court indicated that Brendlin was free to leave as
evidenced by his opening
of the door at one point. The California Supreme
Court concluded that Brendlin,
as a passenger had not been seized by the traffic
stop but rather he was seized
after the officer verified his warrant. As such his
seizure was good and thus,
the evidence against him was valid.
Oral arguments are set for April 23,
2007.
__________
CITATIONS:
*1 Brendlin v. California, 2007 U.S. LEXIS
1164 (US cert granted January 19, 2007). back
*2 Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991). back
|
Overview
LLRMI has an on-going affiliation with
over 60 law enforcement experts who are nationally recognized
in their particular
law enforcement field. Unlike many expert services that operate
as a single person entity, LLRMI takes the team approach
and can provide a multi-disciplinary approach to a single case where
doing
so will
enhance the law enforcement agency ’s
defense.
View All LLRMI Services |
