What does the case of Whren v. United States (1996) establish regarding traffic stops?

In the case of Whren v. United States (1996), the Supreme Court established that officers can stop a vehicle if they have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred, not merely reasonable suspicion. This ruling clarified that the subjective motivation of officers does not impact the legality of a traffic stop; as long as there is probable cause to believe that a traffic law has been violated, the stop is justified.

The significance of this ruling lies in its affirmation that even if an officer's true motive for a stop might be to investigate something other than the traffic violation itself, the stop remains lawful as long as there is an observable traffic infraction. This firm standard ensures that officers do not face scrutiny over their intentions, allowing them to focus on maintaining road safety.

The other options do not fully capture the legal standard set forth by the case. For example, asserting that officers need probable cause for all stops is misleading; the case specifically pertains to traffic violations. Witnesses are not a necessary component of a traffic stop, and while a visible infraction is crucial to support the stop's legality, whren v. United States primarily emphasizes the role of probable cause rather than just the visibility of an infraction. Thus, the ruling underscores the