Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Passenger Frisks

US Supreme court decision: ARIZONA v. JOHNSON, No. 07–1122.

1-27-2009 National:

The United States Supreme Court has ruled on an officer's right to frisk passengers during traffic stops. That's if officers have reasonable suspicion, but police and defense lawyers are having a tought time agreeing on what that means.

"You never know who you're coming into contact with," says Capt. Eben Bratcher with the Yuma County Sheriff's Office. "If a reasonable person, which is defined as an average citizen, would think that there's a chance that that person's carrying a gun and he may hurt me, that could be defined as reasonable suspicion."

Defense attorneys see things differently. Local attorney at law, John Minore, would like the court to define limits to the term reasonable suspicion. He cites details from a 2002 incident where a passenger from Eloy was frisked after he and the driver were pulled over in Tucson. A court syllabus shows the officer was concerned because the passenger was "from a town with a Crips gang."

"So if you're from Tucson or if you're from Douglas or Eloy or whatever, we have gang members there so the police can stop and search you?" asks Minore. "I think it went too far. I'm originally from Detroit. I grew up there, so does that give police officers the right?"

The syllabus also states that the officer questioned the passenger because of his clothing and behavior. She had also learned that the suspect was an ex-con. The man was arrested on weapons and drug charges.

YCSO says the stop and frisk policy has been in practice for years. Even though the Yuma County Sheriff's Office was not involved in the case that put passenger pat downs under the microscope, officials there say they have no plans of changing traffic stop procedures.

..News Source.. by KSWT News