ARIZONA v. JOHNSON Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: During a lawful traffic stop, police frisked a passenger based on a reasonable suspicion that he was armed and dangerous. The Supreme Court held that the frisk was constitutional, as the passenger was already lawfully seized for the duration of the stop.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that during a lawful traffic stop, police may frisk a passenger if they have reasonable suspicion the person is armed and dangerous, without needing any separate suspicion that the passenger is involved in criminal activity.
ARIZONA v. JOHNSON Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Members of an Arizona gang task force conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle after a license plate check revealed a suspended registration, a civil infraction. The defendant, Lemon Johnson, was a passenger in the back seat. During the stop, Officer Trevizo observed that Johnson was wearing clothing consistent with Crips gang membership, possessed a police scanner, and was from a town known for gang activity. Johnson also informed the officer that he had previously served time in prison for burglary. Based on these facts, and for officer safety, Trevizo asked Johnson to exit the vehicle. Believing Johnson might be armed, she immediately conducted a pat-down search (frisk) and discovered a handgun. Johnson was charged with unlawful weapon possession. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed his conviction, reasoning that the officer’s questioning about gang affiliation transformed the lawful seizure into a consensual encounter, and without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity by Johnson himself, the frisk was unlawful.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a police officer perform a protective pat-down search of a passenger in a lawfully stopped vehicle based solely on a reasonable suspicion that the passenger is armed and dangerous, without any belief that the passenger is committing or has committed a criminal offense?
Yes. The pat-down search of Johnson was constitutional. The Court reasoned that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
May a police officer perform a protective pat-down search of a passenger in a lawfully stopped vehicle based solely on a reasonable suspicion that the passenger is armed and dangerous, without any belief that the passenger is committing or has committed a criminal offense?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies the rule that the inherent seizure of a passenger Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco
Legal Rule
During a lawful traffic stop, an officer may conduct a pat-down search Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cill
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis integrated the principles of *Terry v. Ohio* with its Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, q
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A lawful traffic stop results in a Fourth Amendment seizure of