Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Brendlin v. California

Supreme Court of the United States · 2007 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth Amendmentseizurepassengertraffic stoptraffic stoppassenger seizurereasonable person test

Facts

Deputies saw a Buick with expired registration tags, later learned a renewal application was being processed, and then stopped the car to verify that a temporary operating permit matched the vehicle, even though the permit appeared normal. Brendlin was a front-seat passenger, and after the stop the deputy recognized him, confirmed he had an outstanding no-bail warrant, and then ordered him out at gunpoint and arrested him. Searches incident to arrest and of the car produced drug-related evidence. Brendlin moved to suppress, arguing that the initial traffic stop unlawfully seized his person.

Issue

When police make a traffic stop, is a passenger in the car seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment so that he may challenge the constitutionality of the stop? More specifically, was Brendlin seized when the car came to a halt, rather than only when he was later ordered out and formally arrested?

Rule

A person is seized when an officer, by physical force or show of authority, intentionally restrains freedom of movement, and a show-of-authority seizure requires actual submission. In the traffic-stop context, a passenger in a private vehicle is seized from the moment the car comes to a halt because a reasonable passenger would not feel free to terminate the encounter or depart without police permission.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Officer Lena Ortiz activated her lights and pulled over a private sedan because she believed its rear plate light was out. Devin Cross was riding in the back seat, and he stayed seated while the car came to a stop at the curb. After contraband was found, Devin moved to suppress, arguing the stop was unconstitutional.

Was Devin seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when the sedan stopped?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a police traffic stop of a private vehicle seizes not only the driver but also the passengers. The test is objective: whether a reasonable person in the passenger's position would feel free to terminate the encounter. Once the car stops in response to police authority, a passenger's movement is restrained just as surely as the driver's, and passive acquiescence by remaining in the vehicle is submission.