Document: 517 U.S. 806116 S.Ct. 1769135 L.Ed.2d 89 WHREN et al.v.UNITED STATESCertiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for District Columbia Circuit. No. 95-5841. Supreme Argued April 17, 1996 Decided June 10, Syllabus* Plainclothes policemen patrolling a "high drug area" in an unmarked vehicle observed truck driven by petitioner Brown waiting at stop sign intersection unusually long time; then turned suddenly, without signalling, and sped off "unreasonable" speed. The officers stopped vehicle, assertedly warn driver about traffic violations, upon approaching plastic bags crack cocaine Whren's hands. Petitioners were arrested. Prior trial on federal charges, they moved suppression evidence, arguing that had not been justified either reasonable suspicion or probable cause believe petitioners engaged illegal drug-dealing activity, officers' traffic-violation ground was pretextual. motion suppress denied, convicted, affirmed. Held: temporary detention motorist he has violated laws does violate Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures, even if officer would have absent some additional law enforcement objective. Pp. 3-13. (a) Detention is where exists violation occurred. See, e.g., Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 659. claim that, because police may be tempted use commonly occurring violations as means investigating other laws, Amendment test stops should whether car purpose enforcing issue. However, this Court's cases foreclose argument ulterior motives can invalidate conduct basis cause. Robinson, 414 218, 221, n. 1, 236. Subjective intentions play no role ordinary, probable-cause analysis. 3-7. (b) Although framed empirical question--whether officer's deviated materially from standard practices--petitioners' proposed plainly designed combat perceived danger pretextual stops. It thus inconsistent with cases, which make clear concern "reasonableness" allows certain actions taken circumstances, whatever subjective intent. supra, Nor protections thought vary place time time, consequence assessing reasonableness light local practices. 7-10. (c) Also rejected petitioners' balancing interests inherent inquiries support minor plainclothes vehicles, since practice only minimally advances government's interest safety while subjecting motorists inconvenience, confusion, anxiety. Where exists, found it necessary engage involving searches seizures conducted manner harmful individual. Tennessee Garner, 471 1. making out-of-uniform remotely qualify such extreme practice. 10-13. 53 F. 3d 371, Scalia, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Justice Scalia 1 In case we decide who committed civil unless motivated desire enforce laws. I. 2 On evening 1993, vice-squad Metropolitan Police Department city car. Their suspicions aroused when passed dark Pathfinder license plates youthful occupants sign, looking down into lap passenger his right. remained what seemed time--more than 20 seconds. When executed U-turn order head back toward truck, suddenly its right, followed, short overtook behind red light. They pulled up alongside, Officer Ephraim Soto stepped out approached driver's door, identifying himself directing driver, Brown, put park. drew window, immediately two large appeared arrested, quantities several types drugs retrieved vehicle. 3 charged four-count indictment violating various including 21 C. Section(s) 844(a) 860(a). At pretrial hearing, challenged legality resulting seizure drugs. argued believe, suspicion, activity; Soto's asserted vehicle--to give warning concerning violations--was denied motion, concluding "the facts controverted," "[t]here nothing really demonstrate contrary normal stop." App. 5. 4 convicted counts issue here. affirmed convictions, holding respect "regardless subjectively believes automobile engaging behavior, permissible same circumstances could suspected violation." 374-375 (CADC 1995). We granted certiorari. 516 ___ (1996). II. 5 guarantees "[t]he right people secure their persons, houses, papers, effects, seizures." Temporary individuals during police, brief period limited purpose, constitutes "seizure" "persons" within meaning provision. See 653 (1979); Martinez-Fuerte, 428 543, 556 (1976); Brignoni-Ponce, 422 873, 878 (1975). An subject constitutional imperative under circumstances. As general matter, decision 659; Pennsylvania Mimms, 434 106, 109 (1977) (per curiam). 6 accept provisions code violated. 18 D. Mun. Regs. 2213.4 (1995) ("An operator shall . full attention operation vehicle"); 2204.3 ("No person turn any giving appropriate signal"); 2200.3 drive speed greater prudent conditions"). argue, however, "in unique context regulations" enough. Since, contend, automobiles so heavily minutely regulated total compliance rules nearly impossible, will almost invariably able catch given technical violation. This creates temptation articulable exists. Petitioners, are both black, further contend might based decidedly impermissible factors, race car's occupants. To avoid danger, say, be, one (applied Appeals) existed justify stop; but rather, officer, acting reasonably, made reason given. A. 7 propose consistent our past cases' disapproval attempts valid bases action citizens pretexts pursuing investigatory agendas. reminded Florida Wells, 495 (1990), stated "an inventory search[1 ] must used ruse rummaging discover incriminating evidence"; Colorado Bertine, 479 367, 372 (1987), approving search, apparently significant there "no showing following procedures, acted bad faith sole investigation"; thatin New York Burger, 482 691, 716-717, 27 observed, upholding constitutionality warrantless administrative inspection,2 search did appear "a `pretext' obtaining evidence penal laws." But undiscerning reader regard these endorsing principle justifiable each addressing validity absence Our quoted statements simply explain exemption need (and warrant), accorded regulation, those purposes. 371-372; 702-703. 8 also rely Bannister, 449 (1980) curiam), which, like one, involved prelude plain-view sighting arrest charges wholly unrelated stop. point statement "there whatsoever presence citation pretext confirm previous occupants" Id., 4, 4. That dictum most demonstrates Bannister inquire question now discussion; answer. And less that: "pretext" meant seen speeding, mean doubt 9 would, moreover, anomalous, say least, treat footnote per curiam indicating reversal prior law. Petitioners' difficulty lack affirmative position. Not never held, outside inspection (discussed above), motive invalidates objectively behavior Amendment; repeatedly held contrary. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 579, 584, (1983), otherwise boarding vessel customs officials rendered invalid "because accompanied Louisiana state policeman, informant's tip ship channel carrying marihuana." flatly dismissed idea serve strip agents legal justification. 218 (1973), (of sort here) fact mere narcotics search," id., 1; lawful postarrest officer-safety justifies searches, see Gustafson Florida, 260, 266 (1973). Scott States, 436 128, 138 (1978), rejecting contention wiretap exclusion conducting tap failed effort comply statutory requirement unauthorized acquisitions minimized, said "[s]ubjective intent alone unconstitutional." described Robinson having established mind hypothecated reasons provide justification viewed objectively, action." S., 138. 10 think depends actual motivations individual involved. course agree Constitution prohibits selective considerations race. objecting intentionally discriminatory application Equal Protection Clause, Amendment. B. 11 Recognizing unwilling entertain challenges officers, disavow intention good touchstone "reasonableness." insist forward--whether usual practices, given--is "objective" one. 12 although terms, approach indisputably considerations. Its whole prevent doing guise do different reasons. word "pretext," "danger" stop, albeit indirectly over run cases. Instead asking proper mind, us ask, effect, (based practices) plausible mind. 13 Why frame fashion court cannot take account admitted curiosity explained foreclosed more sensible option. If evidentiary establishing intent, attempt root vices through objective sense. indeed principally that. principal basis--which applies equally reach ostensibly means--is 236 ("Since custodial gives rise authority moment [the officer] indicate fear [arrestee] suspect arrestee] armed"); Gustafson, (same). proposal assuage it. Indeed, seems somewhat easier figure plumb collective consciousness determine "reasonable officer" act While manuals procedures sometimes assistance, ordinarily reduced speculating hypothetical reaction constable--an exercise called virtual subjectivity. 14 Moreover, practicably assessed judge, time. variable, cf. 265; Caceres, 741, 755-756 (1979), trivialities. illustrated arguments case. largely regulations permit vehicles "only grave pose immediate threat others." Department-Washington, C., General Order 303.1, pt. Objectives Policies (A)(2)(4) (Apr. 30, 1992), reprinted Addendum Brief Petitioners. invalidation apply jurisdictions applied Columbia, wearing uniform marked cruiser. 15 argue insistence adherence practices rooting pretext. cite dicta Abel 362 217 (1960), arrested Immigration Naturalization Service (INS), warrant claimed, issued grounds enable Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) room after arrest. regarded allegation "serious misconduct," Abel's claims "[a] finding open th[e] record" findings below, "`the proceedings [INS] differed done whom [there pending FBI investigation],'" 226-227. leap proposition regular failure follow proves (or operational substitute for) Abel, involve assertion cause--and contexts views later Scott, Villamonte-Marquez. claimed contain supportive dicta, incident driving license, noted "not departure department practice." "[w]e leave another day questions arise these." Ibid. purports answer, merely leaves open. III. 16 elaboration test, inquiry requires weigh governmental implicated balancing, claim, investigation infractions vehicles; safety, retard producing confusion alarm--a view supported Department's own generally prohibiting concerned, acknowledge ordinary entail possibly unsettling show authority"; best "interfere freedom movement, inconvenient, consume time" worst "may create substantial anxiety," 657. anxiety likely pronounced cars. 17 true every case, turns determination, involves all relevant factors. With rare exceptions applicable here, result why Prouse examples "balancing" There, random checking motorist's registration, that--like claim--involves intrusion traditional expressly distinguished precisely here: "probable multitude equipment regulations." 661. approvingly foremost method violations," 659, afford "`quantum individualized suspicion'" ensure discretion sufficiently constrained, 654-655 (quoting 560). What detailed stops, upheld checkpoint 556-562, disallowed so-called "roving patrol" 882-884: analysis existed, actually perform extraordinary manner, individual's privacy physical interests--such as, example, deadly force, (1985), unannounced entry home, Wilson Arkansas, 514 (1995), home warrant, Welsh Wisconsin, 466 740 (1984), penetration body, Winston Lee, 470 753 (1985). practice, governed rule broken "outbalances" private avoiding contact. 19 urge factor "multitude difficult obey perfectly virtually everyone guilty violation, permitting single whomever wish aware allow becomes expansive infraction itself longer measure lawfulness enforcement. identify exorbitant codes, know right) decide, do, particular important merit For run-of-the-mine surely is, realistic alternative common-law seizure. Here code. Amendment, thereby discovered admissible, convictions Circuit correct. 22 Judgment * syllabus part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337. property lawfully seized detained, harmless, valuable items (such kept towed car), protect false loss damage. South Dakota Opperman, 364, 369 (1976). business premises authorities responsible pervasive regulatory scheme--for mine health standards. Donovan Dewey, 452 594, 599-605 (1981).

Category: 0