In the case of Bruce Edward Brendlin v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that passengers in a vehicle are subject to Fourth Amendment protections during traffic stops and have the right to challenge unlawful seizures. The case arose when police stopped a car in which Brendlin was a passenger; they had no reason to believe he had committed an offense but arrested him after discovering he was wanted for parole violation. The court held that once a vehicle is lawfully detained for a traffic violation, any passenger within it has been seized from moving freely about and thus may challenge the constitutionality of their seizure just like the driver can.

In the dissenting opinion for Bruce Edward Brendlin v. California, Justice Scalia argued that a passenger in a vehicle does not have the same expectation of privacy as the driver and therefore should not be considered "seized" under Fourth Amendment protections during a traffic stop. He contended that passengers are free to exit the vehicle unless specifically ordered by police to stay inside. Therefore, he believed that Brendlin was not seized until officers identified him as having an outstanding warrant and arrested him. This view contrasts with majority's interpretation which held that both drivers and passengers are seized from the moment a car is pulled over because they're typically unable to leave without police permission.