Whren vs. U.S.
...ren’s lap. Brown and Whren were both arrested with several different drugs in the car. Whren and Brown were charged in a four count indictment with violating various federal drug laws, and decided they wanted to challenge the legality of the stop which led to the finding of the drugs. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and regardless of what the police think, they can traffic stop someone as long as it is reasonable. Whren and Brown confessed that Officer Soto did have probable cause to believe that a traffic code had been violated. They also argue that traffic stops are used in means so the officer can investigate other law violations. They believe their stop had not been justified by probable cause they were engaging in drug dealing. And also the officer had approached the car and said they were pulled over for a traffic stop. The Fourth Amendment gives “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and seizures”. Brown and Whren feel the officer disregarded the Fourth Amendment. Like another case, “Colorado Vs. Bannister” that Whren and Brown relied upon, they also feel that when you’re pulled over for a traffic stop, the police have no evidence to search your car for any reason. In “Colorado Vs. Bannister” they petitioned that there was no evidence to even issue a traffic citation. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit think the reasonableness for a traffic stop depends on the motivations that the officer has. They say the constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law. Of course like most cases when people go against pol...