BRENDLIN v CALIFORNIA, 2007

M1 Class Week 4

Presentation:

A12 Brendlin v California, 2007 (Warrantless seizure of passenger in a car)

1.    Introduction:

The judgement / ruling was handed down by the Supreme Court. Brendlin and California are the 2 parties. In this case, Brendlin is the petitioner and California, the respondent. The USSC has jurisdiction over this case as it raises the federal legal issue of the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

2.    Facts:

While operating / manning a random checkpoint in order to check vehicle registrations, the police stopped the car in which the petitioner, Brendlin, was in the passenger seat. At the moment when they stopped the car, the police had no grounds to reasonably believe that the driver and his passenger were involved in criminal activity. Upon recognizing Brendlin, however, the officers checked his record and found that he was in violation of his parole. The police then undertook to search / conducted a search of the car and found that the two individuals were in possession of drugs. 

Voc: To be in the front seat

3.    Which courts had jurisdiction and what were their respective rulings?

Since being in possession of drugs is a state offence, the case did not start in a federal court but in a California trial Court. The case was then heard by the state’s Court of Appeal, and by the State Supreme Court before reaching the Supreme Court on a Writ of Certiorari.

4.    What were the petitioner’s arguments? What specific motion did he file?

The defendant first moved to suppress the evidence on the ground that it had been obtained illegally since the police lacked probable cause or even reasonable suspicion to stop the car. The state trial court denied the motion, but Brendlin appealed and reversing the decision, the State Court of Appeal, ruled that Brendlin had been illegally “seized” by the police.

Allowing the State of California’s appeal, the State’s Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision. It ruled that Brendlin had actually not been seized. Indeed, no other circumstances would have led a reasonable person to believe that they were being subjected to a search by the police.

5.    What was the decision handed down by the court? Was the decision reached unanimously?

In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the State Supreme Court’s judgement and held that a passenger in car being stopped by the police was, just like the driver, “seized” and may challenge the constitutionality of the seizure. A seizure, the Court recalls, is characterised by the restraint of a person’s freedom of movement as a consequence of a show of authority on the part of police officers (or law enforcement agents).

Submission from the suspect has to be established to confirm a seizure.

When the intention of the police to deprive the suspect of his freedom of movement is ambiguous, passive acquiescence can be interpreted as a form of submission, if a reasonable individual in the same set of circumstances would have felt unable to leave the scene or terminate the interview.

Just like the driver, Brendlin was seized since no one in his position could have reasonably believed they would have been free to go or end the police interview. A police checkpoint is tantamount to / is a manifest show of authority which reasonably led both driver and passengers to believe they are under scrutiny, and all occupants of the car are in a position of submission since any attempt to leave would meet with police disapproval.

The US Supreme Court challenges the 3 elements that informed the State Supreme Court’s argument.

Firstly, the idea that the police intended to stop the car and not to control Brendlin, shifts the issue from the objective perception of what the police intention was, to the subjective motive of the police to stop the car.

The Mendenhall test re-establishes that the relevant criterion to determine if an individual was subject to a search is whether or not a reasonable passenger would have felt constrained by the police show of authority.

Secondly, the Supreme Court contests that Brendlin did not show any sign of submission. If he was incapable of showing any sign of submission while he was being driven by his friend, Brendlin actually manifested submission by staying inside the car during the police control which clearly shows he felt he was the object of a search.

Lastly, the US Supreme Court established that contrary to what the State Supreme Court contends, no car being slowed down on its journey by the stopping of other cars, would reasonably feel it was being subjected to the police show of authority.