Рет қаралды 93,082
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.co...
Whren v. United States | 517 U.S. 806 (1996)
Imagine you’re driving a car and you forget to use your blinker before turning. An officer stops you, but not to give you a ticket. Instead, he’s really just curious to see whether your car contains anything illegal. Does the Fourth Amendment permit the officer to use your minor traffic violation as a pretext for stopping you? The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Whren versus United States.
James Brown was driving his car with Michael Whren as a passenger. Both were young African American men. They were driving in an area known for illegal drug sales. Police officers patrolling the area for drug offenses observed Brown and Whren stop at an intersection for an unusually long time. The officers became suspicious that the men were drug dealers. At that point, however, the officers lacked probable cause or even reasonable suspicion that the men were selling drugs.
The officers continued to observe the men and eventually saw Brown commit some minor traffic infractions. The officers stopped the car and approached the driver’s side. In plain view, an officer could see plastic bags containing what appeared to be crack cocaine in Whren’s hands. The officers arrested Whren and Brown and searched the car as an incident to arrest, finding more illegal drugs. A federal grand jury indicted Whren and Brown for federal drug offenses.
Whren and Brown filed pretrial motions to suppress the evidence of drugs, contending that the officers’ traffic stop of Brown’s car violated the Fourth Amendment. They argued that because the officers in their case had no subjective intent to issue a traffic citation, and because no reasonable police officer would’ve pulled them over solely for the minor traffic infractions, the stop was an unconstitutional seizure. Their motions further contended that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by engaging in racial profiling, pegging Whren and Brown as suspected drug dealers without reasonable suspicion that they possessed drugs. The district court denied their motions to suppress.
Whren and Brown were then convicted at a jury trial. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed their convictions. Whren and Brown successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: www.quimbee.co...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.co...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: www.quimbee.co...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our KZbin Channel ► www.youtube.co...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.co...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries