HIGH COURT RULES PASSENGERS CAN CONTEST ARREST STOPS

WASHINGTON -- A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that passengers
in vehicles pulled over by the police have the same rights as drivers
to challenge the legality of the traffic stop when it results in an
arrest.

The court said that passengers, like the driver, are "seized" by
police when the vehicle they are traveling in is stopped and are thus
covered by the Fourth Amendment and allowed to challenge unreasonable
searches and seizures.

In the specific case before the court, a California passenger named
Bruce Brendlin was charged with drug possession because of drug
paraphernalia found in the car in which he was traveling.

Brendlin argued that the discovery of the evidence was the result of
an unconstitutional seizure because police lacked probable cause to
make the traffic stop.

But the California Supreme Court said Brendlin had no grounds to make
such a challenge because he had not been seized by the police and had
given tacit approval to the search by staying in the car rather than
leaving the scene.

The Supreme Court said that made no sense.

"We think that in these circumstances any reasonable passenger would
have understood the police officers to be exercising control to the
point that no one in the car was free to depart without police
permission," Justice David Souter wrote for the court.

During the case's oral arguments, several Supreme Court justices
expressed that same opinion.

The case is one of three cases that the court decided Monday either
unanimously or with only one dissenter.

The rest of the court's term is not likely to be as
harmonious.

Before adjourning at the end of the month, the justices will announce
about a dozen more decisions.

Included on that list are such divisive topics as the use of race in
school assignments, whether taxpayers have the right to sue over
government grants to faith-based social service organizations and
several First Amendment cases, including a challenge to the
McCain-Feingold campaign finance act.

The justices are scheduled to meet again on Thursday.

The court's decision in the case involving Brendlin was in line with
the interpretations of all lower federal and state courts, with the
exception of the high courts in California, Colorado and Washington.

Souter said to go along with the California court's interpretation
would "invite police officers to stop cars with passengers regardless
of probable cause or reasonable suspicion of anything illegal."

Groups who had supported Brendlin made the same point.

"By holding that both passengers and driver can object to an
unconstitutional stop, the decision properly deprives the police of
what would otherwise be a virtual invitation to engage in racial
profiling," said Steven Shapiro, national legal director of the
American Civil Liberties Union.

The state conceded in the case that the officer did not have adequate
justification to make the stop.

But once the officer made the stop, he noticed that the passenger was
"one of the Brendlin boys," and he knew that one of them -- Bruce, it
turned out -- was wanted for parole violation.

That led to the search of the car.

After finding Brendlin had the right to challenge the traffic stop,
the Supreme Court sent the case back to California for further legal
action.