Justices to decide passenger police search case

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Friday that it would decide whether a passenger in a vehicle pulled over for a traffic violation may challenge the stop for violating the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The justices agreed to review a California Supreme Court decision that when a police officer wrongfully stops a vehicle any resulting constitutional violations affect only the driver, not the passengers.

The case involved a traffic stop by a sheriff's deputy, Robert Brokenbrough, in 2001 in Yuba City, California.

He stopped the vehicle even though it had a temporary operating permit taped to the rear window and he had confirmed that there was an application to renew the car's expired registration.

The driver was Karen Simeroth and Bruce Brendlin was in the passenger seat. After asking for her driver's license, Brokenbrough recognized Brendlin as someone who may be wanted for a parole violation.

After confirming Brendlin's parole violation, he ordered Brendlin out of the car at gunpoint and placed him under arrest. A search turned up an orange syringe cap on Brendlin and drug paraphernalia in the car.

Brendlin was charged with drug violations. He moved to suppress the drug evidence on the grounds that it had been unlawfully seized and the initial stop was unlawful.

An appeals court agreed and ruled that Brendlin was illegally detained as a result of the traffic stop and that the stop itself was unlawful.

But the California Supreme Court ruled against Brendlin and his attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court.

In contrast to the California Supreme Court ruling, they said most U.S. appeals courts around the country have held that a passenger may challenge a traffic stop under such circumstances.