The personal, or subjective, motives of an officer are not a factor in the Court's Fourth Amendment analysis of whether the cause for a stop is sufficient.

[4] Similar to the controversy around New York City's Stop and Frisk program, some believe that the ruling in Whren will lead to an increase in racial profiling towards young African American males.

They were members of the District of Columbia's Vice Squad and were assigned to the area; they noticed the suspicious vehicle pulled over at a stop sign for about 20 seconds.

Also, Whren and Brown were pulled over in a school zone, which resulted in harsher federal drug violation sentences.

[7] "In this case we decide whether the temporary detention of a motorist who the police have probable cause to believe has committed a civil traffic violation is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures unless a reasonable officer would have been motivated to stop the car by a desire to enforce the traffic laws.

The court came to a unanimous decision, written by Justice Scalia:The temporary detention of a motorist upon probable cause to believe that he has violated the traffic laws does not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures, even if a reasonable officer would not have stopped the motorist absent some additional law enforcement objective.

[1] The court also rejected the petitioners claim that the government's interest in traffic safety led to anxiety, confusion, and haste for Whren and Brown.

David Harris argues that pretextual traffic stops "[deepen] distrust and cynicism by African Americans about police and the entire criminal justice system.