Arizona v. Johnson
2009 United States Supreme Court case
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, by unanimous decision, that police may conduct a Terry-stop patdown of a passenger in an automobile that has been lawfully stopped for a minor traffic violation, provided that the police reasonably suspect that the passenger is armed and dangerous.
Background
Tucson, Arizona police officers were patrolling a neighborhood associated with the Crips street gang when they stopped a vehicle because its registration had been suspended. Officers noticed that Lemon Montrea Johnson, the vehicle's backseat passenger, looked back and kept his eyes on the officers as they approached, that he was wearing a blue bandana (consistent with Crips membership) and that he had a police scanner in his pocket. While in the car, Johnson stated that he was from a town that the officer knew to be associated with the Crips gang, and also admitted that had served a prison sentence for burglary and had been out of prison for about a year. The police asked Johnson to exit and step away from the car because they wanted to question him and gather gang intelligence. After he complied, the police patted him down because they believed that he was armed and dangerous, based on their observations and Johnson's statements. The pat-down search revealed a gun, and Johnson was arrested.
The trial court denied Johnson's motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Johnson's detention had evolved into a consensual encounter because the police investigation into his gang affiliation was unrelated to the traffic stop.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Arizona v. Johnson” is 2009 United States Supreme Court case. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Arizona, Johnson and United, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “2009 United States Supreme Court case” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q4791502. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2009.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Arizona v. Johnson”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Arizona v. Johnson primary sources, Arizona v. Johnson archive and Arizona research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Arizona v. Johnson”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Arizona v. Johnson” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.