In Brendlin v. California, the Supreme Court held unanimously that when police pull a car over, every person inside is seized under the Fourth Amendment, not just the driver. That means a passenger can challenge whether the stop was legal and, if it wasn’t, ask the court to throw out evidence the police found as a result.1Justia. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007)
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court
In late 2001, a deputy sheriff pulled over a car because its temporary permit looked expired, though the deputy later admitted he had no real basis to think anything was wrong. Bruce Brendlin was riding in the front passenger seat. The deputy recognized him, confirmed an active parole warrant, ordered him out at gunpoint, handcuffed him, and searched him and the car. The search turned up a syringe and materials used to make illegal drugs.
Brendlin was charged based on what the officer found. His defense argued the stop itself was unconstitutional and that the evidence should be suppressed. The question the Supreme Court agreed to answer was narrow but important: was Brendlin, as a passenger, seized when the car was pulled over? If he wasn’t, he had no standing to challenge the stop at all.1Justia. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007)
When a Passenger Is Seized Under the Fourth Amendment
A person is seized when a government official uses physical force or a show of authority to restrict their freedom of movement. The test courts apply is whether a reasonable person in that situation would feel free to ignore the officer and leave.1Justia. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007)
Writing for the Court, Justice David Souter explained that a traffic stop is a show of authority aimed at the vehicle as a whole. When the patrol lights come on and the car pulls over, no reasonable passenger thinks they can open the door, step out, and walk away. The officer’s command has interrupted everyone’s travel, and a passenger who tried to leave would expect to be stopped or questioned.1Justia. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007)
The Court also warned about the alternative. If passengers were not considered seized, officers would face little consequence for stopping cars without a valid reason, since passengers would have no way to challenge those stops. Treating the whole car as seized keeps traffic stops within Fourth Amendment limits for everyone inside.1Justia. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007)
What the Ruling Means for Passengers
The practical consequence is standing. Because a passenger is personally detained the moment the car is pulled over, a passenger has the legal right to challenge whether the officer had a valid reason for the stop. That was not settled before Brendlin, and lower courts had disagreed about it.1Justia. Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007)
If a judge agrees the stop was unconstitutional, the passenger can ask that evidence found during the encounter be suppressed under the exclusionary rule, which generally bars the government from using evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search or seizure. Suppression is not automatic. It depends on whether the evidence was tied closely enough to the illegal stop, and courts recognize exceptions, including situations where officers acted in good faith or where the evidence would have been discovered anyway.2Cornell Law School. Exclusionary Rule
Brendlin does not decide whether any particular stop is lawful, and it does not give passengers any special protection the driver lacks. What it does is put passengers and drivers on the same footing for Fourth Amendment purposes the instant the car comes to a stop.