Case Summary
**Case Summary: Arizona v. Johnson, Docket No. 7861415**
**Court:** United States Supreme Court
**Argued:** December 10, 2008
**Decided:** March 29, 2009
**Key Facts:**
In this case, the respondent, Maurice Johnson, was stopped by law enforcement officers for a traffic violation. During the stop, the officers noticed suspicious behavior from Johnson and determined they had reasonable suspicion to conduct a pat-down search for weapons. During this search, they discovered a firearm. Johnson was subsequently charged with possession of a firearm by a prohibited person.
**Legal Questions:**
The primary legal question addressed in Arizona v. Johnson was whether the police officers had the authority to conduct a pat-down search of Johnson's person during a legal traffic stop without probable cause to believe that he was armed and dangerous. The case primarily revolved around the legality of the search under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
**Holding:**
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona. The Court held that law enforcement officers may conduct a pat-down search of a passenger during a lawful traffic stop if the officers have reasonable suspicion that the passenger is armed and dangerous, even if the personal nature of the traffic stop does not indicate any specific crime beyond the traffic violation.
**Reasoning:**
The Court's decision relied on the broader interpretation of officer safety in the context of stop-and-frisk scenarios. The majority opinion emphasized that the investigative stop's purpose was not merely to address the traffic violation but also to ensure the safety of the officers. The Court reasoned that the nature of the traffic stop, coupled with Johnson's behavior and the surrounding circumstances, provided sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify the pat-down search.
**Outcome:**
The ruling in Arizona v. Johnson affirmed the lower court's decision and established an important precedent concerning the ability of law enforcement to conduct searches during traffic stops. This case clarified the standard of reasonable suspicion necessary for officers to conduct searches for weapons in the interest of officer safety.
**Significance:**
Arizona v. Johnson reaffirmed the Court’s commitment to balancing the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves during interactions with the public against the individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. The ruling underscores the importance of context in evaluating reasonable suspicion and the permissible scope of searches during traffic stops.