Summary of Whren v. United States [U.S. Supreme Court (1996)]

Petitioner/Defendant: Whren and his partner; the defendants were stopped at a stop sing in a high drug area. Vice squad officers, who were wearing plain clothes and driving unmarked car, noticed the defendants’ SUV stopped at the stop sign for about 20 seconds. After the officers made a u-turn, the defendants made a right turn without giving a signal and then they drove off at a fast speed. The officers caught up to the defendants and pulled them over. As one of the officer walked to the SUV, he spotted two large plastic bags full of drugs. The defendants were convicted for the possession of drugs. Now the defendants appeal and argue that the officers stopped them not for the traffice violation, but to conduct investigation for a crime the officers had no probable cause for, and that violates the defendants’ 4th Amendment rights. The defendants also argue that since they were black, the officers used the minor traffic violation to verify their stereotypical suspicions. The defendants further ask the court to apply the test of whether a reasonable officer would have stopped the defendants for the minor traffic violation they were pulled over for.

Issue: “Does the temporary detention of a motorist who the police have probable cause to believe has committed a civil traffic violation is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures unless a reasonable officer would have been motivated to stop the car by a desire to enforce the traffic laws?”

Holding: No

Legal Reasoning: The court ruled that it is impractical to apply the reasonable officer test in the current situation. The defendants violated a traffic rule and the officers had probable cause to believe that the violation took place and that is why they pulled the defendants over. The court further ruled that a balancing test need not to be applied here because that officers did not conduct the stop and the search “in an extraordinary manner, unusually harmful to an individual’s privacy or even physical interests…” The court also stated that the defendants’ claims of being discriminated against due to their race should be considerd under the Equal Protection Clause and not the 4th Amendment. “Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis.” So the conviction was affirmed.