Whren vs. United States. June 10, 1993 - Essay Example

As the police officers in an unmarked car made their first pass, they noticed that the Whren and Brown were in a dark colored Pathfinder truck with temporary license plates, and the driver, Brown kept looked downward to the lap of Whren in the passenger seat. The police officers then made a U-turn towards the Pathfinder, when all of a sudden the Pathfinder suddenly turned right without signaling, and sped off at what the officers describe an "unreasonable speed." Thus the police officers continued pursuit, and in a short while caught up with Whren and Brown at a stop light.

The officers identified themselves and as the approached the driver side window, saw that the Whren had in his hands two large plastic bags of crack cocaine. They were subsequently arrested and charged with federal drug charges. At the pretrial suppression hearing, Whren and Brown filed a motion to suppress the evidence on the ground of an illegal search and seizure surrounding the circumstances of the case. They alleged that the police officers used the traffic violation as a pretext for stopping the truck due to the lack of any reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop them on suspicion of drug dealing.

Court Decisions: The District Trial Court denied the motion and conducted trial, resulting in the conviction of Whren and Brown. On appeal to the Court of Appeals their conviction was affirmed. Thus, Whren and Brown brought this case to the Supreme Court on certiorari. Issue: Whether or not the police officers conducted an unlawful search and seizure in this case. Whether or not the police officers violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution proscribing unlawful searches and seizures.Ruling: No on both issues.

In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court held that as long as police officers have reasonable cause to believe that there had occurred a traffic violation, they may stop any vehicle. In the case at bar, the police officers had reasonable cause to stop Whren and Brown on the basis of a traffic violation because they had made a turn without signaling and sped away from a stop sign at an unreasonable speed. Hence, an actual traffic violation was committed by Whren and Brown, and the resulting search and seizure of the Pathfinder was reasonable, regardless of what other personal motivations the officers might have had for stopping the vehicle.

Also, the Supreme Court discarded the allegations of Whren and Brown that they had suffered from anxiety, confusion, and haste which they experienced from the stop and search procedure outweighed the government's interest in traffic safety. Indeed, while the Fourth Amendment requires a balancing test between the benefits derived from a search-and-seizure and the harm it may cause to the person, this test only applies to unusually harmful searches and seizures. In the case at bar there was nothing unusually harmful about this traffic stop.

Personal Opinion: With reference to the case at bar, I am in total concurrence with the manner in which the legal and procedural issues were resolved by the Supreme Court. The Constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures embodied in the Fourth Amendment has to be taken in accordance with the underlying circumstances in the case. The evil sought to be prohibited is that of abuse on the part of the arresting officer, in making any search or seizure of a individual's person, house, papers and effects.

Indeed, a number of Constitutional doctrines have already held that the applicable case law. Delaware vs. Prouse, United States vs. Martinez Fuerte and United States vs. Brignoni Ponce were all mentioned