Criminal Court Cases: An Explanation of Whren V. United States

On June 10, 1993 the petitioners Michael A. Whren and James L. Brown were seen stopped at an intersection in a known “high drug area” for a suspicious amount of time. Police officers patrolling the area observed the truck at the intersection as well as the subsequent traffic violation that occurred minutes later when Michael A Whren turned his truck without the use of a turn signal. The police officers pulled over the truck because of the violation and observed M. Whren in possession of several bags of “crack cocaine.” The two men were arrested and taken into custody on federal drug charges. The lawyers for Whren and Brown filed a motion “to suppress the evidence” on the basis that the police had used the traffic violation to stop the truck because they had no other “reasonable suspicion or probable cause” for a traffic stop on “suspicion of drug dealing,” the motion was denied by the court. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals which brought the case before The United States Supreme Court who granted the writ of certiorari.

The United State Supreme Court made their decision on Whren v. United States on June 10, 1996 which stated that: (1) “The temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe that he has violated the traffic laws does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures, even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additional law enforcement objective” (LexisNexis, Doc. 2). In addition the court continued by stating that: (2) “Detention of a motorist is reasonable where probable cause exists

to believe that a traffic violation has occurred…. Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary probable cause Fourth Amendment analysis” (LexisNexis, Doc. 2). And lastly the court addressed the issue of “reasonable” actions by saying: (3) “…The Fourth Amendment concern with ‘reasonableness’ allow certain actions to be taken in certain circumstances, whatever the subject intent… Nor can the Fourth Amendment protections be thought to vary from place to place and from time to time which would be the consequence of assessing the reasonableness of the police conduct in light of the local law enforcement practices” (LexisNexis, Doc. 2).

The Fourth Amendment in the bill of rights is being upheld in this case by outlining the actual guidelines of what a reasonable search and seizure would be considered and when these tactics could be used in the field by police officers. It is also upholding the Fourteenth Amendment clause which outlines the due process procedures on a state level.

This case is a tricky one because the validity of the stop was in question, which led to the seizure of the drugs. The decision makes sense though, because the police did have reason to stop the vehicle in the first place. The decision made by the judges in this case may seem to favor the law enforcement system by giving them more of “the benefit of doubt.” However, in order to do their job efficiently law enforcement need to have a sense of security that every decision they make will not be placed under strict scrutiny. Law enforcement cannot do their job if there is going to be a constant fear of “getting in trouble. For that reason, I believe that the ruling in this case was the best decision they could have made, and shows support for the local law enforcement as well as outlining for citizens what is acceptable and what is not. The decision really did not leave much of a question as to the procedures involved in a traffic stop and what a motorist can expect in the event of a reasonable traffic stop.

“Whren v. United States(2).” LexisNexis. 2006. Date accessed 26

October 2006.