## Facts

- Tucson police officers on a gang task force stopped a vehicle for a traffic infraction related to a suspended registration.
- Officers initially lacked reason to suspect criminal activity by the occupants beyond the traffic violation.
- Officer Maria Trevizo focused on Lemon Montrea Johnson, a back-seat passenger, noting indicators she associated with gang involvement (including Crips-related clothing), a police scanner, statements about a gang-associated hometown, and a recent prison release.
- Trevizo asked Johnson to exit the vehicle to speak away from other occupants and testified she suspected he might be armed and dangerous.
- Trevizo performed a patdown and felt the butt of a gun in Johnson’s waistband; Johnson resisted, was handcuffed, and officers seized the gun and marijuana.
- Johnson was convicted in state court; the trial court denied suppression, but the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed on the view that the encounter had become consensual before the frisk.

## Issues

1. Whether, during a lawful traffic stop, an officer may conduct a *Terry* patdown of a passenger based on reasonable suspicion the passenger is armed and dangerous, without separate reasonable suspicion that the passenger is engaged in criminal activity.
2. Whether questioning unrelated to the traffic infraction converts an ongoing traffic stop into a consensual encounter such that the passenger is no longer seized at the time of the frisk.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The Court held that police may frisk a passenger during a lawful traffic stop if the officer reasonably suspects the passenger is armed and dangerous.
- The Court rejected the view that the stop became consensual before the frisk; a passenger remains seized for the duration of the traffic stop until the stop is completed and the occupants are free to leave.
- Applying *Terry*, the Court concluded the patdown did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

## Legal Principles

- A lawful traffic stop results in a Fourth Amendment seizure of all vehicle occupants, including passengers, lasting for the duration of the stop.
- Under *Terry*, an officer may proceed from a lawful stop to a protective frisk when the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous.
- A protective frisk of a passenger during a lawful traffic stop does not require independent reasonable suspicion that the passenger is engaged in criminal activity beyond the traffic stop context.
- An officer’s questions unrelated to the traffic infraction do not, by themselves, end the traffic-stop seizure or convert the encounter into a consensual one while the stop remains ongoing.

## Conclusion

The Court held that during a lawful traffic stop, officers may order a passenger out and conduct a limited patdown when they reasonably suspect the passenger is armed and dangerous, and that the passenger remains seized until the stop is completed.


Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009)