Whren v. United States Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 жов 2020
- Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Whren v. United States | 517 U.S. 806 (1996)
Imagine you’re driving a car and you forget to use your blinker before turning. An officer stops you, but not to give you a ticket. Instead, he’s really just curious to see whether your car contains anything illegal. Does the Fourth Amendment permit the officer to use your minor traffic violation as a pretext for stopping you? The United States Supreme Court addressed this issue in Whren versus United States.
James Brown was driving his car with Michael Whren as a passenger. Both were young African American men. They were driving in an area known for illegal drug sales. Police officers patrolling the area for drug offenses observed Brown and Whren stop at an intersection for an unusually long time. The officers became suspicious that the men were drug dealers. At that point, however, the officers lacked probable cause or even reasonable suspicion that the men were selling drugs.
The officers continued to observe the men and eventually saw Brown commit some minor traffic infractions. The officers stopped the car and approached the driver’s side. In plain view, an officer could see plastic bags containing what appeared to be crack cocaine in Whren’s hands. The officers arrested Whren and Brown and searched the car as an incident to arrest, finding more illegal drugs. A federal grand jury indicted Whren and Brown for federal drug offenses.
Whren and Brown filed pretrial motions to suppress the evidence of drugs, contending that the officers’ traffic stop of Brown’s car violated the Fourth Amendment. They argued that because the officers in their case had no subjective intent to issue a traffic citation, and because no reasonable police officer would’ve pulled them over solely for the minor traffic infractions, the stop was an unconstitutional seizure. Their motions further contended that the officers violated the Fourth Amendment by engaging in racial profiling, pegging Whren and Brown as suspected drug dealers without reasonable suspicion that they possessed drugs. The district court denied their motions to suppress.
Whren and Brown were then convicted at a jury trial. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed their convictions. Whren and Brown successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: www.quimbee.com/cases/whren-v...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/whren-v...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our UA-cam Channel ► ua-cam.com/users/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Why do you not say the Supreme Court ruling about this case?
So.... ist an actual summary if you stop in the middle of the damn story?
They lost because they had it all in plain view, anything seen from a window of a car is “public view” and that is the justification for going further with the search, if they never had the baggies in plain view from the start nothing would have happened to them.
Edit: ok so just thought some more and yes they could have still been searched but it would have been an unlawful search and more than likely they would have won the case just imo, I’m not a lawyer and this is just my reasoning from what laws I know
Just to clarify, so if they had the drugs in the glove box, the officers would not have been able to search them(unless consent was given or they had probable cause)?
@@alexsprangers7301 yes
Supreme court ruled that cops can search you, your passengers, your vehicle, as long as the traffic stop was 'valid'. Basically nullifying & voiding the 4th Amendment for anyone driving a a vehicle, and their passengers. It was a unanimous decision.
@@UtubeMyAccountName unless they had probable cause all evidence found would be inadmissible look up, The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine the only time you can be searched legally is either pc or if you are a felon.
Did they win in the Supreme Court?
They lost, the supreme court ruled against whren since they were pulled over for traffic violations, which they stated the cops had reasonable motives for search and seizure due to the violations committed despite if they had personal motives.
@@Y0ungg_Kev lol you would think that would be part of the video lmao, that's crazy..
@@jeromegarcia5396
Quimbee just cliff-hanging so people buy his app 🙄
They lost in the U.S Supreme Court
No. They were stopped for a traffic violation. That's legal. They had drugs in plain view. That's probable cause. Courts have actually ruled that if a cop made a bad stop due to misunderstanding the law, the search is still legal.
As long as the officers saw it in plain view they're ok. At least that's what I've been taught
Seems pretty clear to me, committing traffic violations is reason to be stopped by police.
If they didn't have the drugs in plain site they could've had a case
Is this the “let’s apply a motivating shock” guy?
I think you've got the line wrong...
17
Down thumb because this is just a teaser advertisement.
These are good UNTIL the end…you should NOT release these episodes UNTIL there’s a FINAL outcome. To end with, “They petitioned the Supreme Court” means nothing. Good Grief Charlie Brown. Release these with the end result of the Supreme Court hearing and deciding on the case. C’mon!
I can say that as a white guy I have also been asked by cops if they can search my car. You literally just have to tell them no. There’s no such thing as “looking guilty”.
Just saying no doesnt work as often more minorities. And there is definitely such thing as “looking guilty”. Example… stop and frisk in New York (tht is much more likely to occur in minority neighborhoods). Ive been stopped multiple times not even for traffic violations, but just cuz there was “suspicious activity” around the area. But upon seeing I’m a student or a hospital worker at a hospital they frequent at, they let me go after running my plates. Ik people who have gotten profiled similarly, and just saying no to the cop did nothing but escalated the situation. And very often, if its taken to court, they side with the cops cuz of reasonable suspicion tht is difficult to fight against, no matter how dumb the suspicion is or if the cop even realized the excuse to search or arrest at the time of the defendant’s “infraction”
@@EliteHoopster2018 stop and frisk legit ONLY exists in NYC. I’m talking for the other 300 million people in this country. If you tell a cop no to a search and he does it anyways you just won a shitload of money in a lawsuit.
@@alexroberts9386 I literally said stop and frisk was in New York. You ignored nearly everything I said. A large part of wht I said was bout reasonable suspicion. Which like I said, is very difficult to prove against. Too many cases of “I thought I saw a weapon” or something like seeing a bag “looking” like it has drugs inside