October Term 2008 · Docket 07-1122
Can police frisk a passenger during a lawful traffic stop without suspecting a crime?
The dispute centers on whether a traffic stop alone justifies a pat-down search of a vehicle passenger.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Joseph Parkhurst argued that controlling occupants during a lawful stop satisfies legal requirements for a frisk.
David Heytens argued that the initial seizure ended before the frisk, requiring separate suspicion of a crime.
questions_asked_by_justices
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 47-13 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 47-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-5 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 51-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 41-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-23
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of police authority during traffic stops. It asks if officers need specific suspicion of a crime to frisk passengers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 47-13 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 47-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 41-13
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 9, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 15-29
What each side wants
Arizona wants the Court to uphold the passenger frisk under existing traffic stop rules.
Johnson wants the Court to reverse the lower court decision and require specific crime suspicion.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 47-13 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 47-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 41-13
What each side says
Arizona argues that controlling occupants during a lawful stop satisfies the legal requirements for a frisk.
Johnson argues that the initial seizure ended before the frisk, requiring separate suspicion of a crime.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 47-13 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 47-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 41-13
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if the argument removes the requirement to suspect a crime is occurring.
Justice Scalia asked if both armed and dangerous status are required for a frisk.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-5 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 51-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-23
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of police power during routine traffic stops. It determines when officers can search passengers without specific evidence of criminal activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 47-13 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 47-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 41-13
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 47-5 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 47-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 51-11 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 51-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 62, lines 21-23 — Transcript, file page 62, lines 21-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 31-47 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 31-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 41-3 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 41-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 5-23
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 47-13 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 47-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 41-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 15-47 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 15-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 47-13 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 47-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-49 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 59, lines 11-43 — Transcript, file page 59, lines 11-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 41-13
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.