Brown v. Texas
443 U.S. 47 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment requires that an officer have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person is engaged in criminal activity before they may stop and detain that person to demand identification.
Facts:
- Two El Paso police officers, Venegas and Sotelo, were on patrol in an alley in an area with a high incidence of drug traffic.
- The officers observed appellant Brown and another man walking away from each other.
- The officers believed the two men had been together or were about to meet before the patrol car appeared.
- Officer Venegas stopped Brown and asked him to identify himself and explain his presence; the other man was not stopped.
- Venegas testified that he stopped Brown only because the situation 'looked suspicious' and he had not seen Brown in that area before, but admitted he did not suspect Brown of any specific misconduct.
- Brown refused to identify himself, asserting that the officers had no right to stop him.
- Officer Sotelo conducted a frisk of Brown but found nothing.
- Upon his continued refusal to provide identification, the officers arrested Brown.
Procedural Posture:
- Brown was charged with violating a Texas statute for refusing to give his name and address to a police officer.
- He was convicted in the El Paso Municipal Court, a court of first instance, and fined $20 plus court costs.
- Brown exercised his right to a trial de novo in the El Paso County Court.
- In the County Court, Brown filed a motion to set aside the charge, arguing the Texas statute was unconstitutional, but the motion was denied.
- Following a bench trial, the El Paso County Court convicted Brown and imposed a fine of $45 plus court costs.
- As the fine was below the statutory threshold for further state appeal, the County Court was the highest court of the state in which a decision could be had.
- Brown, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 application of a state statute that criminalizes a person's refusal to identify themself to a police officer violate the Fourth Amendment when the officer lacks any reasonable suspicion to believe the person is engaged in criminal conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
Yes. Applying a state statute to convict a person for refusing to identify themself violates the Fourth Amendment when the initial stop was not based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable seizures requires that any detention, even a brief one, must be based on 'specific, objective facts' that create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in a crime. The officers in this case could not articulate any such facts; Brown's mere presence in a high-crime area, without more, is insufficient to generate reasonable suspicion. Because the initial detention was an unconstitutional seizure, Brown could not be punished for refusing to comply with the officer's demand for identification during that unlawful stop.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and clarifies the 'reasonable suspicion' standard established in Terry v. Ohio for investigatory stops. It establishes that an individual's presence in a high-crime area is not, by itself, sufficient to justify a stop and demand for identification. The ruling places a crucial limit on police discretion, preventing officers from conducting arbitrary detentions based on vague hunches or location alone, thereby protecting an individual's right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion. Future cases involving 'stop and identify' statutes will require courts to scrutinize the objective facts available to the officer at the time of the stop to ensure the seizure was constitutional.
Unlock the full brief for Brown v. Texas