Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.

The court on Monday unanimously overruled an Arizona appeals court that threw out evidence found during such an encounter.

The case involved a 2002 pat-down search of an Eloy, Ariz., man by an Oro Valley police officer, who found a gun and marijuana.

The justices accepted Arizona's argument that traffic stops are inherently dangerous for police and that pat-downs are permissible when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the passenger may be armed and dangerous.

The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... tusAZ.html

Wonder if the guy was a Mexican?

Not surprising. The issue of traffic stops is one that is constantly being litigated as there are so many open-ended issues that can never be resolved in one case.

I tend to agree with this decision. The police need to protect themselves and they are never more vulnerable than during traffic stops.

Will this power be abused? Most likely. But that fact doesn't alone make the ruling a bad one.

Well there goes the rest of our rights.

All they have to say is "I believed him to be a terrorist" and the Patriot Act takes over, and the U.S. Constitution is set aside.