Arizona v. Johnson
555 U. S. ____ (2009) (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
During a lawful traffic stop, police may frisk a passenger of the vehicle if they have a reasonable suspicion that the passenger is armed and dangerous. The lawful stop of the vehicle itself serves as the lawful seizure of the passenger, satisfying the first prong of the Terry test.
Facts:
- Members of Arizona’s gang task force were on patrol near a neighborhood associated with the Crips gang.
- At 9 p.m., officers pulled over a vehicle after a license plate check revealed its registration was suspended for an insurance-related civil infraction.
- The officers had no reason to suspect anyone in the vehicle of criminal activity at the time of the stop.
- Lemon Montrea Johnson was the back-seat passenger.
- Officer Trevizo observed Johnson wearing clothing consistent with Crips membership, including a blue bandana, and noticed a police scanner in his jacket pocket.
- In response to questions, Johnson stated he was from a town known for a Crips gang and had previously served prison time for burglary.
- Trevizo asked Johnson to exit the vehicle to question him further about possible gang affiliation.
- Based on her observations and Johnson's statements, Trevizo developed a suspicion that Johnson might have a weapon and, for officer safety, performed a patdown search on him after he exited the car, discovering a gun.
Procedural Posture:
- Lemon Montrea Johnson was charged in Arizona state court with possession of a weapon by a prohibited possessor.
- Johnson moved to suppress the evidence from the frisk, but the trial court denied the motion.
- A jury convicted Johnson of the gun-possession charge.
- Johnson (as appellant) appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals, which reversed his conviction in a divided decision.
- The Arizona Supreme Court (the state's highest court) denied the State of Arizona's petition for review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourth Amendment permit a police officer to conduct a patdown search (frisk) of a passenger in a lawfully stopped vehicle when the officer reasonably suspects the passenger is armed and dangerous, but has no reason to believe the passenger is involved in criminal activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. The Fourth Amendment permits a patdown search of a passenger in a lawfully stopped vehicle if the officer develops reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. The Court reasoned that a traffic stop constitutes a seizure of everyone in the vehicle, which satisfies the first condition of Terry v. Ohio—a lawful investigatory stop. Therefore, police do not need an additional reason to believe the passenger is involved in criminal activity to justify a frisk. To proceed from the stop to a frisk, officers only need to satisfy Terry's second condition: a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. The Court also held that an officer’s inquiries into matters unrelated to the traffic violation do not render the seizure unlawful, as long as they do not measurably extend the duration of the stop.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and solidifies the application of the Terry v. Ohio doctrine to passengers during traffic stops. It establishes that the lawful seizure of a vehicle automatically extends to its passengers, meaning police do not need independent cause to detain a passenger for the duration of the stop. By separating the justification for the stop from the justification for the frisk, the ruling empowers police to protect themselves by frisking any occupant of a vehicle—driver or passenger—whom they reasonably suspect to be armed and dangerous, thereby prioritizing officer safety in the inherently volatile context of roadside encounters.
Unlock the full brief for Arizona v. Johnson