Whren v. United States

Facts

On the evening of June 10, 1993, plainclothes vice-squad officers of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department were patrolling a high drug area of the city in an unmarked car. They saw a dark Pathfinder truck with temporary license plates and youthful occupants waiting at a stop sign for more than 20 seconds, with the driver looking down into the passenger's lap. When the police car made a U-turn toward it, the truck turned suddenly right without signaling and sped off at an unreasonable speed. The officers followed and overtook the truck when it stopped at a red light. Officer Ephraim Soto walked to the driver's door, identified himself, and told the driver, Brown, to put the vehicle in park. At the window, Soto saw two large plastic bags of what appeared to be crack cocaine in Whren's hands. Both men were arrested, and several types of illegal drugs were taken from the vehicle. Whren and Brown, who are both black, accepted that Soto had probable cause to believe the traffic code had been violated. They argued that Soto's stated reason for approaching the truck, to give the driver a warning about traffic violations, was a pretext (a cover for a different purpose).

Issues

1. Is a stop of a motorist whom police have probable cause to believe committed a civil traffic violation inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment unless a reasonable officer would have been motivated to make the stop by a desire to enforce the traffic laws?
2. Does the balancing of government and individual interests in a Fourth Amendment reasonableness inquiry call for a different result when plainclothes officers in an unmarked car stop a motorist for a minor traffic violation supported by probable cause?

Holding

Because the officers had probable cause to believe Whren and Brown had violated the traffic code, the stop was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Any ulterior motive of the officers did not make it unreasonable, so the drugs found were admissible and the convictions stood.