Reasonable Suspicion Flashcards
US v. Cortez—Quantum of Suspicion
The Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, reversed the lower courts’ rulings. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger delivered the majority opinion, which held that the agents had “particularized suspicion” to justify the stop.
The assessment of the totality of the circumstances, taking into account all relevant factors, including the law enforcement officer’s knowledge and experience, The officer’s ability to draw inferences and deductions from those facts, based on the officer’s experience and training.
In the assessment of the whole picture must yield a particularized suspicion—in conducting the totality of circumstances there must be a suspicion that the particular individual being stopped is engaged in wrongdoing
Florida v. Royer—Comparison to Probable Cause
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Royer, holding that the detention and search were unconstitutional. The plurality opinion, written by Justice Byron White, determined that while the initial encounter between the agents and Royer was consensual, the subsequent detention in the small room and seizure of his luggage went beyond the bounds of a permissible investigatory stop under Terry v. Ohio. The Court reasoned that the agents lacked probable cause or a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the prolonged detention and search of Royer’s luggage.
Kansas v. Glover
The U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, reversed the Kansas Supreme Court’s ruling. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion, holding that the officer’s stop was justified by reasonable suspicion. The Court reasoned that, under the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable for the officer to infer that Glover was driving his own vehicle, despite the lack of any additional information about the driver. The Court emphasized that this inference was not based on a mere hunch, but rather on a commonsense understanding of human behavior
Navarette v. California—Basis of Knowledge - Roadrage
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of California, holding that the anonymous 911 call provided sufficient basis for the officers to form a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion, emphasizing that the caller’s “basis of knowledge” was established by the fact that they reported an eyewitness account of a specific, dangerous driving incident. The Court also noted that the 911 call system’s ability to trace and record calls mitigated concerns about the caller’s reliability. The Court concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officers had reasonable suspicion to justify the traffic stop.
Illinois v. Wardlow—Flight - Why are you running
In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Illinois, holding that Wardlow’s unprovoked flight from the police, when considered in the context of the high-crime area, provided sufficient basis for the officers to form a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Chief Justice William Rehnquist delivered the majority opinion, emphasizing that while an individual’s presence in a high-crime area, by itself, is not enough to establish reasonable suspicion, an individual’s unprovoked flight upon seeing the police is a pertinent factor in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists. Illinois v. Wardlow established that an individual’s unprovoked flight from police in a high-crime area, when considered alongside other relevant circumstances, can provide a basis for reasonable suspicion to justify a “stop and frisk” under the Fourth Amendment.
Heien v. North Carolina—Mistake of Law - Is your tail light out? Wait what’s this?
The U.S. Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision, affirmed the North Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion, holding that an officer’s reasonable mistake of law can provide the basis for reasonable suspicion. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment requires government officials to act reasonably, and that this standard applies to both an officer’s understanding of the facts and the law. Therefore, if an officer’s mistake of law is objectively reasonable, it can still satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness.
Use of Profiles
Minnesota v. Dickerson—Frisk for Evidence Impermissible - Buy me dinner first
In a unanimous decision, the Court ruled in favor of Dickerson, holding that the officer’s seizure of the cocaine was unconstitutional. Justice Byron White delivered the majority opinion, acknowledging that the “plain feel” doctrine permits officers to seize contraband discovered during a lawful “stop and frisk” if its incriminating character is immediately apparent. However, the Court determined that the officer’s manipulation of the lump in Dickerson’s pocket went beyond the scope of a lawful frisk for weapons, as it was not immediately apparent that the lump was contraband without further manipulation.
Use of Profiles
Michigan v. Long—Searches Beyond the Person - You’re a dangerous fellow
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, reversed the Michigan Court of Appeals’ ruling. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor delivered the majority opinion, holding that the officers’ protective search of Long’s vehicle was permissible under the Fourth Amendment. The Court reasoned that officers may conduct a protective search of a vehicle’s passenger compartment if they have a reasonable belief that the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons. In this case, the presence of the hunting knife and Long’s erratic behavior provided the officers with a reasonable belief that he might be dangerous, justifying the search.
