Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialseizure
appeal

Related Cases

Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 117 S.Ct. 882, 137 L.Ed.2d 41, 65 USLW 4124, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1162, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1668, 97 CJ C.A.R. 255, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 292
View Case »
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495, 81 USLW 4209, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3328, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3953, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 117
View Case »
Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 93 S.Ct. 2000, 36 L.Ed.2d 900
View Case »
State v. Londo, 215 Ariz. 72, 158 P.3d 201, 490 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 35
View Case »
Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98, 130 S.Ct. 1213, 175 L.Ed.2d 1045, 78 USLW 4159, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2218, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2731, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 135
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 129 S.Ct. 781, 172 L.Ed.2d 694, 77 USLW 4096, 09 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 975, 2009 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1168, 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 620

Facts

On April 19, 2002, Officer Maria Trevizo and her team stopped a vehicle in Tucson for a civil infraction related to its registration. Johnson, a back-seat passenger, exhibited behavior and clothing that raised suspicion. After questioning him about his gang affiliation, Trevizo patted him down for safety, during which she felt a gun, leading to Johnson's arrest for possession of a weapon as a prohibited possessor. The trial court upheld the stop and frisk, but the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, claiming the encounter had become consensual.

On April 19, 2002, Officer Maria Trevizo and Detectives Machado and Gittings, all members of Arizona's gang task force, were on patrol in Tucson near a neighborhood associated with the Crips gang. At approximately 9 p.m., the officers pulled over an automobile after a license plate check revealed that the vehicle's registration had been suspended for an insurance-related violation.

Issue

Did Officer Trevizo have the authority to conduct a patdown of Johnson during a lawful traffic stop, given the circumstances of the encounter?

Did Officer Trevizo have the authority to conduct a patdown of Johnson during a lawful traffic stop, given the circumstances of the encounter?

Rule

Under Terry v. Ohio, a police officer may conduct a 'stop and frisk' if the investigatory stop is lawful and the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous.

In Terry v. Ohio, the Court upheld 'stop and frisk' as constitutionally permissible if two conditions are met. First, the investigatory stop must be lawful. Second, to proceed from a stop to a frisk, the police officer must reasonably suspect that the person stopped is armed and dangerous.

Analysis

The Supreme Court determined that the initial stop of Johnson was lawful and that Officer Trevizo had reasonable suspicion to believe he was armed and dangerous based on his behavior and background. The Court emphasized that the nature of traffic stops allows officers to ensure their safety and that of the public, justifying the patdown as a reasonable response to the circumstances.

The Arizona Court of Appeals recognized that, initially, Johnson was lawfully detained incident to the legitimate stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. But, that court concluded, once Officer Trevizo undertook to question Johnson on a matter unrelated to the traffic stop, i.e., Johnson's gang affiliation, patdown authority ceased to exist, absent reasonable suspicion that Johnson had engaged, or was about to engage, in criminal activity.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Arizona Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the patdown did not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Arizona Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Who won?

The State of Arizona prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court upheld the lawfulness of the patdown conducted by Officer Trevizo, affirming that the investigatory stop and frisk were justified under the circumstances.

The Arizona Court of Appeals recognized that, initially, Johnson was lawfully detained incident to the legitimate stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger.

You must be