Brendlin v. The State of California

In California, officers stopped a car, which they later admitted was not suspicious and showed no indications of wrongful driving. When an officer asked for the driver's liscence and registration, he recognized Brendlin as a person in violation of parolle, and proceeded to arrest Brendlin. While searching his person, the officer found evidence of methanphetamine use. Brendlin was charged with possession of methanphetamine, where he moved to suppress the evidence that the officer fould as a result of the stop, which he argued was unlawful, because the officer did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop the car, which Brendlin argued was a "seizure" of his person, since he was not free to leave the vehicle. The trial court dismissed his motion to suppress. The California court of appeals reversed the previous court's decision, then the Supreme Court of California narrowly upheld the trial court's ruling.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Brendlin. Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the court.

edit:Sources:
www.findlaw.com
www.wikipedia.org