Create a 1 page page paper that discusses bus law. Pat Down Procedure and Standard Arizona v. Johnson was a court case that arose out of the issue of warranted and unwarranted pat downs during traffic stops. The Arizona Court of Appeal held that although the police Officer, Maria Trevizo, had reasonable cause to conduct a frisk on Lemon Johnson, the cause ceased to exist when it emerged that she questioned him on issues unrelated to the traffic violation. However, this decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court which ruled that Trevizo had done the right thing by seizing, questioning and conducting a pat down on Johnson. The court ruling was that it was lawful for Trevizo to have conducted the pat down since she had reasonable suspicion that Johnson was armed and dangerous. Once a police officer stops a vehicle for any kind of traffic offence, the basic standards as set out in Terry v Ohio must be followed. The first Terry condition stipulates that a traffic stop begins at the point when the vehicle is stopped and ends when the officer conducting the investigation tells the occupants that they can go. In Arizona v. Johnson, the standard that should be followed to an officer’s pat down of a passenger during a traffic stop is based on whether the officer reasonably suspects that the individual in question is armed and dangerous. The law does not require the officer conducting the investigation during a traffic stop to have a search warrant. His suspicion of the driver and/or passenger being armed and dangerous is enough to warrant a pat down. However, if the officer does not suspect the vehicle occupants of being armed and dangerous, then it would not be lawful to conduct a pat down as doing so would be infringing on the individual’s constitutional rights. Work Cited Supreme Court of United States. Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S. Ct. 781, 2009. Web. 18 July 2011.