Racial Profiling

Question 1

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce

Answer 1

Facts
On March 11, 1973, Border Patrol officers stopped the respondent’s car on a California highway near the Mexican border because its three occupants appeared to be of Mexican descent. The officers questioned the occupants about their citizenship, leading to the discovery that two passengers were illegal immigrants, and subsequently, the respondent was charged and convicted of transporting illegal immigrants.

Issue
The central issue before the Court was whether the Fourth Amendment permits Border Patrol officers to stop a vehicle near the border and question its occupants solely because they appear to be of Mexican ancestry.

Holding
The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment requires that officers have a “reasonable suspicion” that the occupants are aliens illegally in the country to justify stopping a vehicle in areas near the border for questioning about their citizenship and immigration status.

Question 2

Whren v United States

Answer 2

Facts
In the case of Whren v. United States, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of whether the temporary detention of a motorist, based on probable cause of a civil traffic violation, is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures, regardless of the officer’s subjective intent. The facts of the case involve plainclothes vice-squad officers of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department patrolling a high drug area. They observed a dark Pathfinder truck with temporary license plates and youthful occupants at a stop sign, leading to suspicion. When the officers approached the vehicle after it sped off and stopped at a red light, they observed drugs in the hands of the passenger, Whren. The occupants were arrested, and at a pretrial suppression hearing, they challenged the legality of the stop and the seizure of the drugs, arguing the stop was pretextual and not justified by probable cause of illegal drug activity.

Issue
The issue before the Court was whether a traffic stop, justified by probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred, is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment if motivated by an ulterior motive, such as suspicion of drug activity, rather than a desire to enforce traffic laws.

Holding
The Court held that the stop was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment as long as there was probable cause to believe a traffic violation had occurred, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals.