OCTOBER TERM, 2008
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ARIZONA v. JOHNSON
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA
No. 07–1122. Argued December 9, 2008—Decided January 26, 2009
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, this Court held that a “stop and frisk”
may be conducted without violating the Fourth Amendment’s ban on
unreasonable searches and seizures if two conditions are met. First,
the investigatory stop (temporary detention) must be lawful, a re-
quirement met in an on-the-street encounter when a police officer
reasonably suspects that the person apprehended is committing or
has committed a crime. Second, to proceed from a stop to a frisk
(patdown for weapons), the officer must reasonably suspect that the
person stopped is armed and dangerous. For the duration of a traffic
stop, the Court recently confirmed, a police officer effectively seizes
“everyone in the vehicle,” the driver and all passengers. Brendlin v.
California, 551 U. S. 249, 255.
While patrolling near a Tucson neighborhood associated with the
Crips gang, police officers serving on Arizona’s gang task force
stopped an automobile for a vehicular infraction warranting a cita-
tion. At the time of the stop, the officers had no reason to suspect the
car’s occupants of criminal activity. Officer Trevizo attended to re-
spondent Johnson, the back-seat passenger, whose behavior and
clothing caused Trevizo to question him. After learning that Johnson
was from a town with a Crips gang and had been in prison, Trevizo
asked him get out of the car in order to question him further, out of
the hearing of the front-seat passenger, about his gang