0 votes

Police State Creep: SCOTUS Rules Passenger Searches OK

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.

Continue: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/0...

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Rule #1: Never talk to

Rule #1: Never talk to cops. Never! under no circumstances! If they ask you a question, respond as simply as possible... i.e. "yes" "no" "i don't know"

Fact: Police are no longer here to protect you, but are not "out to get you"...just look at the way police have become "road nazi's"....you can't go 4mph over the speed limit on a highway for 10 minutes before you see lights in your rearview mirror.

Think for yourself, question authority

this is not good

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement” - Thomas Jefferson

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

Know the law

Know your rights.
Before you know it we will be rightless. That is to say without rights.

So, even if someone is minding his/her own business

as a passenger, and happens to legally possess/carry a firearm, an officer could still make some sort of trouble for him/her. I'm tired of the "powers that be" playing house with our lives, telling us that they are the parent/nanny and we have to mind whatever they say. They over-regulate us while the bigwigs run around unchecked, causing all the problems. =[


Is this really anything new?


What has really changed with this ruling compared to Terry v. Ohio?
The basic fact is, the 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Hence the need for "reasonable suspicion".

Really though, if cops can already pat you down on the street, how would violating a traffic law give you more freedom?

As some have said, the problem lies with who is judging what "reasonable suspicion" is. It is a problem, I agree...but it's not a new problem.

meekandmild's picture

With Police brutility and police murderers

A person being stopped should be able to protect himself from the police officer.

I want to report my neighbor

The police state has no where to creep to , it's been implimented already..

Why did SCOTUS have jurisdiction in the first place?

As I read the Syllabus, Johnson was convicted in superior court on a state charge, on appeal the state appeals court reversed, and the state supreme court denied review. Where does a prosecutor appeal on this hit the federal level if Johnson's rights were upheld and the state courts slammed the doors?

Reading the decision now. Something stinks here.

OK, I read the decision. It's actually a short one.


And I was right, it stinks.

The court of appeals ruled that Johnson's conversations with the cop had nothing to do with the original traffic stop, and as a result, the conversation, being the grounds for the cop ordering Johnson out of the car and the subsequent frisk, was suppressed as evidence, so the conviction was reversed. The cop never Mirandized anyone before questioning either.

Ginsburg in some perverted logic seems to think that any topic of questioning in a traffic stop is fine and can create the reasonable suspicion and probable cause for the ordered departure from the vehicle and subsequent frisk. In other words, she gave the cops a fishing license.

So, the way out of this is to simply say as little as possible, volunteer nothing, and pray in vain that the cop is not an idiot. That means passengers need to STFU.

I strongly suggest as required reading "You and the Police" by Boston T Party.

Next they will say that not answering questions is

A reason to be suspicious.

I Thought They Dealt With

I Thought They Dealt With This Long Ago. Courts have been ruling for about 20 years that cops have the right to search the passenger compartment durring a traffic stop "to effect" their security, ie, to search for weapons that may be within reach of the occupants. You are technically "under arrest' when you are pulled-over, but the question was, "are the passengers under arrest as well?"

This is all in light of the recent weakening of the fourth amendment "exclusionary rule" which used to say that evidence gathered in violation of the limitations of the 4th amendment had to be excluded from trial.

In the end it's an all out war against individual liberty. Every new law requires enforcement and therefore makes every traffic stop more and more dangerous for the enforcers. Government in the form of the State is like a cancer.



yup my thoughts also


meekandmild's picture

This is a federal ruling

you also may have protection under your states constitution. Which the US supreme court has no jurisdiction.

fireant's picture

Anyone still think...

"sobriety checkpoints" in order to catch drunks and criminals is such a good idea? If so, you are part of the problem. And in case you are unaware, they are mostly all Federally funded (don't expect to read about that in MSM).

Undo what Wilson did


This is a full blown advancement. Since Obam has been in they have been cranking these rulings out with one per week.

"reasonable suspicion" means, in practical terms, any time

the police officer, in his or her own judgement, decides to engage in a pat-down. There is no intervening authority, judicial or otherwise, to prevent it. It's not difficult to figure out exactly "how" resistance to such power will be greeted by the police.
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."

"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."

from the linked article

' The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said. '

Who determines if the "reasonable suspicion" of the police is legitimate ?

Oh, that would be a police board of inquiry ... right ?

A jury of your peers.


The Fed is not a private bank. PRIVATIZE THE FED!!!
"The Federal Reserve Banks should simply be regarded as governmental agencies." -Murray Rothbard
"I now call the Federal Reserve the fourth branch of government." -Ron Paul


Peers that have been conditioned to shake in fear and submit to police officers for just about any reason. Good luck in upholding your Constitutional rights in that arena.


of course the police do

And any challenge to their godly claims will likely be shot down by the goons employed by the force itself.


Some things just freeze my heart

I already gave up flying, I may get a horse. I will live free.

Truth exists, and it deserves to be cherished.

"One of your tail lights was out..."

"now get the hell out of your car, place your hands on the roof, and spread em!"

Yeah Mike, no police state exists here in the good ole USSA, does it? The sheeple won't wake up until they start herding the nascar/nfl/ameriKan idol watchin james Q publiK types into the 'reeducation centers'.


So when is the Supreme Court going to rule the Constitution is Unconstitutional? I wouldn't put it past these habitual freedom haters.


Several SCOTUS justices need

Several SCOTUS justices need very badly to be impeached. I am not sure of the process, but I think only the president can do it.





The Chinese say.....

"If you wait on the river bank long enough, you will eventually see the body of your enemy float by." Ruth, and some of the others are so old and full of demons that we should be seeing them float by soon.

Thanks for posting this.

It just keeps getting better and better.

Frisky Dingo

So now police have the authority to pull you over for not using your blinker and make you get out of the car so they can frisk you if they so desire? Nah, no police state here. Sad that so many don't understand how police states come into being........one freedom lost at a time.