Fourth Amendment: We of course agree with petitioners that the Constitution prohibits selective enforcement of the law based on considerations such as race. But the constitutional basis for objecting to intentionally discriminatory application of laws is the Equal Protection Clause, not the Fourth Amendment. Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis. 517 U.S. 806, 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). Therefore, if the plaintiffs can show that they were subjected to unequal treatment based upon their race or ethnicity during the course of an otherwise lawful traffic stop, that would be sufficient to demonstrate a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Cf. United States v. Montero-Camargo, 208 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 889, 121 S.Ct. 211,
holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection holding that equal protection principles precluded use of hispanic appearance as a relevant factor for fourth amendment individualized suspicion requirement holding that the state law violated equal protection principles holding that suspicion must be individualized holding that ch 980 does not violate principles of equal protection