Whren v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1996 · Criminal Procedure

517 U.S. 806 (1996)

Updated July 27, 2026

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentTraffic Stopstraffic stopprobable causepretextobjective reasonablenesssubjective intent

Facts

Plainclothes vice-squad officers in an unmarked car observed petitioners' truck stopped at a stop sign for an unusually long time, then turning suddenly without signaling and speeding off at an unreasonable speed. The officers followed and approached the truck when it stopped at a red light, and Officer Soto identified himself and directed the driver to put the vehicle in park. As Soto reached the driver's window, he immediately saw two large plastic bags of what appeared to be crack cocaine in Whren's hands. Petitioners moved to suppress, arguing the stop was pretextual and not justified by suspicion of drug activity, although they accepted that the officer had probable cause to believe traffic laws had been violated.

Issue

Whether the Fourth Amendment forbids a traffic stop supported by probable cause to believe a civil traffic violation occurred when the officer's real motivation was to investigate other suspected criminal activity. More specifically, whether such a stop is unreasonable unless a reasonable officer would have made the stop for the stated traffic reason.

Rule

As a general matter, a traffic stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when police have probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred. Subjective intentions of the officers play no role in ordinary probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis, and alleged selective enforcement based on race is addressed under the Equal Protection Clause rather than the Fourth Amendment.

🔒

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 Torres was assigned to a burglary task force and suspected that Devin Cole was fencing stolen electronics. While following Devin's car, Lena saw him change lanes without signaling and cross a solid line, both traffic infractions under local law. She stopped the car, and during the encounter saw stolen property in plain view on the back seat.

If Devin moves to suppress, arguing the stop was unconstitutional because Lena's real goal was to investigate burglary rather than traffic safety, how should the court rule?

Explanation. An ordinary traffic stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when police have probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred. The officer's subjective intentions do not invalidate objectively justifiable conduct. The Court rejected both a pretext inquiry and a test turning on whether officers usually enforce the traffic law in similar circumstances.