6 of 56

Write now Article Tools

Brendlin, Bruce v. California

Facts: On November 27, 2001 in Yuba City, California, officer Robert Brokenbrough noticed a 1993 Buick with expired tags. He radioed dispatch to inquire as to whether or not the owner was in the process of obtaining new tags, which he was. Officer Brokenbrough noticed a temporary permit in the rear window, but, unsure of whether the permit matched the vehicle, Brokenbrough pulled the car over. Upon talking with the driver, the officer thought he recognized the passenger as Bruce Brendlin, who had skipped parole. The officer was correct and discovered there was a warrant for Brendlin's arrest. The officer returned to the Buick, ordered Brendlin out of the car and placed him under arrest. The officer then searched the vehicle, finding more than 12 grams of marijuana and equipment for manufacturing methamphetamine. At the trial, Brendlin filed a motion to suppress the evidence, invoking the 4th amendment prohibiting "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court denied his motion, saying that only the driver had been detained until the officer recognized Brendlin as a parolee at large and placed him under arrest (Altman).

Issue: In this case, the question at hand was whether a passenger in a vehicle that has been stopped by the police is "seized," according to the 4th Amendment, and thereby able to question the legality of the traffic stop? (Altman)

Decision: The trial court denied that Brendlin had actually been seized until the officer arrested him based on the violation of his parole. Therefore, the court stated that Brendlin lacked standing to suppress the evidence against him (Altman). California's 3rd District Court of Appeals overturned the trial court's decision. In his majority opinion, Judge Arthur Scotland stated that, "A common sense application of Fourth Amendment principles leads to the conclusion that a traffic stop constitutes at least a momentary seizure of everyone in the car." He added that, "By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that the passenger is free to go from the point at which the driver yields to the officer's show of authority." Scotland also said that the police officer had, at best, a "hunch" and "unreasonably and unlawfully" conducted the stop (Altman). The case then went to the California Supreme Court, where the Appeals court's decision was overturned by a 4-3 split vote. The state did not want to see Brendlin go free, and therefore had to prove that he was not seized. To do this, the court

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Police abuse: Holding the police responsible for their actions?
We want to hear your view. Write now!