Arizona v. Johnson

555 U.S. 323 (2009)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Arizona's gang task force, was on patrol in Tucson near a neighborhood associated with the Crips gang. Officers pulled over an automobile after a license plate check revealed that the vehicle's registration had been suspended for an insurance-related violation. This violation constituted a civil infraction warranting a citation. The vehicle had three occupants--the driver, a front-seat passenger, and a passenger in the back seat, D. The officers had no reason to suspect anyone in the vehicle of criminal activity. All of the occupants were told to keep their hands visible. They were any weapons in the vehicle; all responded no. The driver was told to get out of the car. The front-seat passenger stayed in the vehicle throughout the stop. An officer also attended to D. As the police approached, D looked back and kept his eyes on the officers. The officer observed that D was wearing clothing, including a blue bandana, that she considered consistent with Crips membership. She also noticed a scanner in Johnson's jacket pocket, which 'struck [her] as highly unusual and cause [for] concern,' because 'most people' would not carry around a scanner that way 'unless they're going to be involved in some kind of criminal activity or [are] going to try to evade the police by listening to the scanner.' D provided his name and date of birth but said he had no identification with him. He volunteered that he was from Eloy, Arizona, a place the officer knew was home to a Crips gang. D said that he had served time in prison for burglary and had been out for about a year. The officer wanted to question D away from the front-seat passenger to gain 'intelligence about the gang D might be in.' She asked him to get out of the car. Based on her observations and D's answers to her questions while D was still seated in the car, Trevizo suspected that 'he might have a weapon on him.' D exited the vehicle and she patted him down for safety. She found a gun. D began to struggle, and she placed him in handcuffs. D moved to suppress the evidence as the fruit of an unlawful search. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the stop was lawful and that Officer Trevizo had cause to suspect D was armed and dangerous. D was convicted. The Court of Appeals reversed. It held absent 'reason to believe Johnson was involved in criminal activity,' Trevizo 'had no right to pat him down for weapons, even if she had reason to suspect he was armed and dangerous.' P appealed.