Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 2009

Arizona v. Johnson

555 U.S. 323 | 129 S. Ct. 781 | 172 L. Ed. 2d 694 | 2009 U.S. LEXIS 868

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, a lawful traffic stop lawfully detains every vehicle occupant, and an officer may frisk a driver or passenger upon reasonable suspicion that the particular person is armed and dangerous—without separate suspicion that the passenger is committing a crime.

Background

Arizona gang-task-force officers stopped a car in Tucson after learning that its registration was suspended because of an insurance-related violation. The stop was for a civil traffic infraction, and the officers initially had no reason to suspect that any occupant had committed another crime. Lemon Montrea Johnson was seated in the back seat.

Officer Maria Trevizo noticed that Johnson watched the officers approach, wore clothing and a blue bandana she associated with the Crips, carried a police scanner in his jacket pocket, said he was from Eloy, and disclosed a prior burglary conviction and prison term. Seeking information about his possible gang affiliation, Trevizo asked Johnson to exit the car. Believing he might be armed, she patted him down and felt a gun near his waist. Johnson struggled and was handcuffed.

Johnson was convicted of possessing a weapon as a prohibited possessor after the trial court denied his suppression motion. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed. Although it agreed that Johnson was initially seized as part of a lawful traffic stop, it held that Trevizo's gang-related questioning had turned the interaction into a separate consensual encounter. In its view, a frisk then required reasonable suspicion that Johnson was involved in criminal activity, in addition to suspicion that he was armed and dangerous. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether a passenger lawfully detained during a traffic stop may be frisked when police lack reasonable suspicion that the passenger is engaged in criminal activity unrelated to the traffic violation.

Holding

Yes. A lawful traffic stop supplies the lawful-stop component of Terry for every occupant of the vehicle; police need not separately suspect a passenger of criminal activity before conducting a frisk.

Reasoning

Terry permits a limited patdown when two conditions are satisfied: the person is lawfully stopped, and the officer reasonably suspects that person is armed and dangerous. In the traffic-stop context, the first condition is met when officers lawfully stop the vehicle for a traffic violation. Under Brendlin, the stop seizes both the driver and all passengers from the moment the car comes to a halt.

The Court read Terry together with Pennsylvania v. Mimms, Maryland v. Wilson, and Brendlin v. California. Mimms permits officers to order a lawfully stopped driver out of a car and to frisk the driver upon reasonable suspicion that the driver is armed and dangerous. Wilson extends the authority to order occupants out of the vehicle to passengers because traffic stops create comparable safety risks for officers regardless of an occupant's status as driver or passenger.

Traffic stops are especially dangerous, and an officer's authority to control the scene protects both officers and occupants. A passenger may have as much reason as a driver to use violence to avoid detection of a more serious offense. Thus, once a passenger is already lawfully seized as part of a traffic stop, the Fourth Amendment does not require an additional, passenger-specific suspicion of criminal activity before a protective frisk; reasonable suspicion that the passenger is armed and dangerous is enough.

Issue #2

Whether Trevizo's questions about Johnson's gang affiliation and her request that he exit the vehicle transformed the continuing traffic stop into a consensual encounter or ended Johnson's seizure before the frisk.

Holding

No. Johnson remained seized throughout the brief interaction, and the traffic stop had not ended before the frisk.

Reasoning

A traffic stop ordinarily continues until officers no longer need to control the scene and communicate that the vehicle's occupants are free to leave. A reasonable passenger understands that the stop prevents him from simply ending the encounter and moving about at will. Nothing in this encounter indicated that Johnson was free to leave or depart without police permission.

Questions unrelated to the traffic violation do not, by themselves, convert a lawful traffic stop into a different kind of seizure, so long as they do not measurably prolong the stop. Trevizo's gang-related questions occurred within minutes of the stop, while the other officers were still handling the driver's license, registration, and insurance matters.

The Court rejected the characterization of the encounter as consensual. Trevizo never told Johnson that he could refuse to answer questions or decline to cooperate, and the patdown followed moments after he left the car. Moreover, an officer need not allow a person who may be dangerous to leave the immediate scene before taking reasonable safety measures.

Issue #3

Whether Trevizo in fact had reasonable suspicion that Johnson was armed and dangerous.

Holding

The Court did not decide that question and left it for the Arizona Court of Appeals on remand.

Reasoning

The Arizona Court of Appeals had assumed, without deciding, that Trevizo reasonably suspected Johnson was armed and dangerous. Because that court reversed solely on the mistaken view that a frisk also required suspicion of passenger criminal activity, the Supreme Court resolved only that legal error.

The Court therefore did not determine whether Johnson's conduct, clothing, scanner, statements, and criminal history collectively created reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous. That fact-specific Fourth Amendment question remained open for the state court to consider on remand.