Case Citator › State v. Mendez

State v. Mendez

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Overruled in part
Court
Supreme Court of Washington
Citation
970 P.2d 722
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
64 of 64
Citing cases (total)
64
Treatment dates
2007
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. State v. Mendez was overruled in part. The Supreme Court held in Brendlin v. California that a passenger is seized when police stop a car, contrary to Mendez's statement that a traffic stop alone does not seize a passenger.
More on how this was screened

Mendez's separate Washington constitutional rule requiring an objective safety reason to direct a passenger to stay in or leave a stopped car continues to be applied. All 64 flagged citations have been read; the partial overruling is listed below. Source review: State v. Tarango (4586283) was read from the Washington judiciary's opinion at source because its text was unavailable through the ordinary opinion source. Tarango's abrogation notation reports Brendlin's act; it is not Tarango's own treatment of Mendez.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

64 later cases cite State v. Mendez; 64 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on State v. Mendez?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court rejected Mendez's contrary view that a traffic stop does not itself seize a passenger for Fourth Amendment purposes.

    Brendlin v. California · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We hold that a passenger is seized as well and so may challenge the constitutionality of the stop. ... Only two State Supreme Courts, other than California’s, have stood against this tide of authority. See People v. Jackson, 39 P. 3d 1174, 1184–1186 (Colo. 2002) (en banc); State v. Mendez, 137 Wash. 2d 208, 222–223, 970 P. 2d 722, 729 (1999) (en banc).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Mendez and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace