U.S. v. Arvizu, 00-1519

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtRehnquist
Citation151 L.Ed.2d 740,122 S.Ct. 744,534 U.S. 266
PartiesUNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. RALPH ARVIZUUnited States Supreme Court
Docket Number00-1519
Decision Date15 January 2002

534 U.S. 266
122 S.Ct. 744
151 L.Ed.2d 740

UNITED STATES, PETITIONER
v.
RALPH ARVIZU

No. 00-1519.

United States Supreme Court

Argued November 27, 2001
Decided January 15, 2002

Syllabus

Respondent was stopped by Border Patrol Agent Stoddard while driving on an unpaved road in a remote area of southeastern Arizona. A search of his vehicle revealed more than 100 pounds of marijuana, and he was charged with possession with intent to distribute. The Federal District Court denied respondents motion to suppress, citing a number of facts that gave Stoddard reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. The Ninth Circuit reversed. In its view, fact-specific weighing of circumstances or other multi-factor tests introduced uncertainty and unpredictability into the Fourth Amendment analysis, making it necessary to clearly delimit the factors that an officer may consider in making stops such as this one. It then held that several factors relied upon by the District Court carried little or no weight in the reasonable-suspicion calculus and that the remaining factors were not enough to render the stop permissible.

Held: Considering the totality of the circumstances and giving due weight to the factual inferences drawn by Stoddard and the District Court Judge, Stoddard had reasonable suspicion to believe that respondent was engaged in illegal activity. Because the balance between the public interest and the individuals right to personal security, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878, tilts in favor of a standard less than probable cause in brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles, the Fourth Amendment is satisfied if the officers action is supported by reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity may be afoot, United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7. In making reasonable-suspicion determinations, reviewing courts must look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing. See, e.g., United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417418. This process allows officers to draw on their own experiences and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available. Id., at 418. The Ninth Circuits methodology departs sharply from these teachings, and it reached the wrong result in this case. Its evaluation and rejection of certain factors in isolation from each other does not take into account the totality of the circumstances, as this Courts cases have understood that phrase. The court appeared to believe that each of Stoddards observations that was by itself susceptible to an innocent explanation was entitled to no weight. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, however, precludes this sort of divide-and-conquer analysis. And the courts view that it was necessary to clearly delimit an officers consideration of certain factors to reduce troubling uncertainty also runs counter to this Courts cases and underestimates the reasonable-suspicion standards usefulness in guiding officers in the field. The de novo standard for appellate review of reasonable-suspicion determinations has, inter alia, a tendency to unify precedent and a capacity to provide law enforcement officers the tools to reach the correct decision beforehand. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 691, 697698. The Ninth Circuits approach would seriously undermine the totality of the circumstances principle governing the existence vel non of reasonable suspicion. Here, it was reasonable for Stoddard to infer from his observations, his vehicle registration check, and his border patrol experience that respondent had set out on a route used by drug smugglers and that he intended to pass through the area during a border patrol shift change; and Stoddard's assessment of the reactions of respondent and his passengers was entitled to some weight. Although each of the factors alone is susceptible to innocent explanation, and some factors are more probative than others, taken together, they sufficed to form a particularized and objective basis for stopping the vehicle. Pp. 611. 232 F. 3d 1241, reversed and remanded.

Rehnquist, C.J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion.

On writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent Ralph Arvizu was stopped by a border patrol agent while driving on an unpaved road in a remote area of southeastern Arizona. A search of his vehicle turned up more than 100 pounds of marijuana. The District Court for the District of Arizona denied respondents motion to suppress, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. In the course of its opinion, it categorized certain factors relied upon by the District Court as simply out of bounds in deciding whether there was reasonable suspicion for the stop. We hold that the Court of Appeals methodology was contrary to our prior decisions and that it reached the wrong result in this case.

On an afternoon in January 1998, Agent Clinton Stoddard was working at a border patrol checkpoint along U.S. Highway 191 approximately 30 miles north of Douglas, Arizona. App. 22, 24. See Appendix, infra (containing a map of the area noting the location of the checkpoint and other points important to this case). Douglas has a population of about 13,000 and is situated on the United States-Mexico border in the
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4521 practice notes
  • Alexander v. Haymon, No. C-3-01-122.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • January 14, 2003
    ...the circumstances to see whether he had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 In this case, in addition to the inherent seriousness of what the detainees told him, Sgt. Baker state......
  • Williams v. State, No. 4 Sept. Term, 2002.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • December 19, 2002
    ...(2000). IV. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.3 United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 750, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). Searches of the home conducted without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable for "the ......
  • Estate of Lockett v. Fallin, No. 15-6134
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • November 15, 2016
    ...Appellant's Opening Br. at 28 (citation omitted). In support, Lockett's Estate cites to a Fourth Amendment case, United States v. Arvizu , 534 U.S. 266, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002), an Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause case, United States v. One Parcel Property Located at Lo......
  • State v. Gomez, No. CT2018-0025
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • February 11, 2019
    ...supra , citing State v. McNamara , 124 Ohio App.3d 706, 707 N.E.2d 539 (4th Dist. 1997) ; See, generally, United States v. Arvizu , 534 U.S. 266, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002) ; Ornelas v. United States , 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). That is, the application......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4513 cases
  • Alexander v. Haymon, No. C-3-01-122.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • January 14, 2003
    ...the circumstances to see whether he had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 In this case, in addition to the inherent seriousness of what the detainees told him, Sgt. Baker state......
  • Williams v. State, No. 4 Sept. Term, 2002.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • December 19, 2002
    ...(2000). IV. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.3 United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 750, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). Searches of the home conducted without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable for "the ......
  • Estate of Lockett v. Fallin, No. 15-6134
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • November 15, 2016
    ...Appellant's Opening Br. at 28 (citation omitted). In support, Lockett's Estate cites to a Fourth Amendment case, United States v. Arvizu , 534 U.S. 266, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002), an Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause case, United States v. One Parcel Property Located at Lo......
  • State v. Gomez, No. CT2018-0025
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • February 11, 2019
    ...supra , citing State v. McNamara , 124 Ohio App.3d 706, 707 N.E.2d 539 (4th Dist. 1997) ; See, generally, United States v. Arvizu , 534 U.S. 266, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002) ; Ornelas v. United States , 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996). That is, the application......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Rethinking Police Expertise.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 Nbr. 2, November 2021
    • November 1, 2021
    ...(377.) Boston v. Harris Cnty., No. H-11-1566, 2014 WL 1275921, at *15 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2014). (378.) E.g., United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002); United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, (379.) That judges presume policing to be a legitimate government service, of course, is cr......
  • QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND UNQUALIFIED ASSUMPTIONS.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 112 Nbr. 1, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...25 combined years' of police training and experiences, a protrusion like this was more often than not a gun"); United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 277 (2002) (concluding that the officer had a reasonable suspicion to stop suspect based on the totality of the circumstances and the officer......
  • POLICING SUSPICION: QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AND 'CLEARLY ESTABLISHED' STANDARDS OF PROOF.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 112 Nbr. 1, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238, 245 n.13 (1983). (48) Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1, 557 U.S. at 371. (49) United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 274 (50) United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 (1981); see also Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1, 557 U.S. at 370 ("A number of our cases......
  • Law Enforcement Case Law
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Review Nbr. 30-2, September 2005
    • September 1, 2005
    ...392 U.S. 1 (1968).U.S. v. Adeyeye, 359 F.3d 457 (8th Cir. 02-20-04).U.S. v. Akridge, 346 F.3d 618 (6th Cir. 10-02-03).U.S. v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).U.S. v. Berryhill, 352 F.3d 315 (6th Cir. 12-11-03).U.S. v. Boyce, 351 F.3d 1102 (11th Cir. 11-28-03).U.S. v. Brookins, 345 F.3d 231 (4th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT