Whren v. United States - Significance, A Routine Traffic Stop?, Lower Court Rulings, Use Of Pretext To Enable A Search

petitioners page home washington

Petitioners

Michael A. Whren, James L. Brown

Respondent

United States

Petitioners' Claim

That evidence discovered and seized by police during a minor traffic stop was inadmissible in court given Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure.

Chief Lawyers for Petitioners

A.J. Kramer, G. Allen Dale, Neil H. Jaffee, Lisa Burget Wright

Chief Lawyers for Respondent

Drew S. Days, U. S. Solicitor General; John C. Kenney, Acting Assistant Attorney General

Justices for the Court

Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia (writing for the Court), David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Clarence Thomas

Justices Dissenting

None

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

10 June 1996

Decision

Denied the petitioners' claim and affirmed the decisions of the trial court and court of appeals, ruling that probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred is sufficient justification for the police to stop a vehicle and conduct a search for objects in plain view within that vehicle.

The War on Drugs

Beginning in the early 1980s, the Court interpreted Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure so as to increase the ability of law enforcement authorities to obtain evidence against criminal suspects. This tendency has been particularly apparent in cases involving the trade in illegal drugs, and has generally mirrored public sentiment.

Related Cases

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975).
United States v. Martinez Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976).
Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977).
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).

Whren v. United States - A Routine Traffic Stop?

On the evening of 10 June 1993 two Washington, D.C. police officers cruised the streets of an area of the city known to be a center of the illegal drug trade. The officers were in plain clothes and drove an unmarked car as they looked for suspicious activity along their route. They soon spotted something that aroused their suspicions: a dark-colored small truck of a type favored by young drug deal…

Whren v. United States - Use Of Pretext To Enable A Search

While the petitioners did not contend that they had not violated the traffic laws of the District of Columbia, they did maintain that the arcane nature of traffic laws rendered nearly all motorists guilty of repeated infractions, and that in this case police officers had used a minor traffic violation as a pretext to conduct a visual search of the vehicle. Whren and Brown also maintained that the …

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.