Breaking News

Supreme Court Traffic Stop Case

What could be so important about a traffic stop that the case went all the way to the supreme Court?

To understand why this case went to the supreme Court, we should start with why Oklahoma and 16 other states filed an amicus brief before the court.

This case involves a challenge to the constitutionality of a useful practice of state law enforcement officers: stopping motor vehicles known to be registered to individuals with suspended licenses, or having outstanding arrest warrants, to verify whether the driver is committing or has committed a crime.

BRIEF OF OKLAHOMA AND 16 OTHER STATES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

When a Kansas Sheriff’s Deputy checked the registration of a 1995 Chevrolet pickup truck, he found that the registered owner, Mr. Charles Glover, had a suspended driver’s license. During a hearing, the State of Kansas stipulated that the deputy “did not observe any traffic infractions, and did not attempt to identify the driver of the truck”. Mr. Glover argues that the stop violated his rights protected by the Fourth Amendment, since it was based solely on the deputy’s suspicion that he was driving the vehicle, without any attempt to identify the driver, and was therefore unreasonable. Several Kansas courts, including their Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Glover. The State of Kansas has appealed to the supreme Court to have the opinion of their own courts overturned.

So why did 17 states file a brief in support of the State of Kansas?

The decision below undermines the ability of state officers to keep their streets safe. This jeopardizes the lives of lawful drivers, passengers, and pedestrians everywhere. Accordingly, amici states have a substantial interest in this Court’s disposition of the case.

BRIEF OF OKLAHOMA AND 16 OTHER STATES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

This case brings several interesting constitutional questions to light.

What is reasonable?

The first question is one I’ve raised before: What is “reasonable”? That’s the heart of the matter before the court, asking if it is reasonable to stop someone because the owner of the car is not licensed to operate it? The attorneys for the state of Kansas and the United States say yes.

Your Honor, we’re asking the Court to hold that, as a general matter, as a matter of common sense and ordinary human experience, the owner of a driver is very often the vehicle — the drive — excuse me, the owner of the vehicle is very often the driver of that vehicle, in the absence of information to the contrary.

MICHAEL R. HUSTON, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner.

As I often say, the devil is in the details. The question should not be whether the owner of a vehicle is likely to be the driver, but whether an owner with a suspended license is likely to drive anyway. As Ms. Harrington, lawyer on behalf of the respondent, stated:

Here, the only fact that would give rise to suspicion of illegal activity is the identity of the driver. And it was Kansas’s burden to establish that the officer had reason to suspect that Mr. Glover was driving. But the officer stipulated that, actually, he had no idea who was driving.

SARAH E. HARRINGTON, ESQ., Bethesda, Maryland; on behalf of the Respondent.

Most of the questions from the justices focused on whether or not the owners of vehicles tend to be the drivers of vehicles. Put another way, they came with the assumption that someone with a suspended license would commit the crime of driving without a valid license, even though they had no evidence to that effect. They assumed the owner of the vehicle is guilty until he or she is proven innocent. Does that mean because my daughter drives a car registered in my name she should be pulled over by every law enforcement officer who sees her on the road if there is a problem with my record?

What is the purpose of the states?

The decision below undermines the ability of state officers to keep their streets safe. This jeopardizes the lives of lawful drivers, passengers, and pedestrians everywhere. Accordingly, amici states have a substantial interest in this Court’s disposition of the case.

BRIEF OF OKLAHOMA AND 16 OTHER STATES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

The states that filed the amicus brief claim a substantial interest in this case because, in their opinion, it could jeopardize the lives of others. What they do not show is any interest in is the rights of those lawful drivers, passengers, and pedestrians about whom they sound so concerned. We do expect police to do what they can to keep us safe, but if we are willing to give up our rights for that perceived safety, we don’t really deserve either.

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

Benjamin Franklin

Burden of proof

The next question we need to consider is that of burden of proof. In this case the deputy had a report of a person with a suspended license. The stop was not based on the actions of the driver, but on the supposition it was likely that the owner was the driver. All without any real basis or evidence to back up that supposition? Shouldn’t reasonableness be based on the actions of the person in question, the driver, and not who government agents think might be driving the car? Chief Justice Roberts doesn’t think so.

We know somebody’s already broken the law in some sense; he’s got a suspended license. … I think it’s probably more likely than not that he would break the suspended license.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS

As Ms. Harrington would later point out, the deputy did not know why Mr. Glover’s license was suspended, so he could not assume the driver had already broken the law, and neither should Chief Justice Roberts. Without further evidence, there is no reason to believe that someone with a suspended license would continue to drive. Therefore the stop, based solely on the state of the license of the registered owner, is not reasonable. If there was further evidence, as in the deputy ran the record of the owner and found from that a reasonable suspicion that he would drive on a suspended license. Or, after checking the owner’s photo against who he saw in the drivers seat was someone he believed could be Mr. Glover, or maybe even observed a minor traffic violation that would not normally initiate a stop, then the deputy would have had reasonable cause.

Why make such a big deal over a little traffic stop? Because little problems grow into big ones. Does an officer have reasonable cause to stop every person driving a Toyota because of a report that one was used in a robbery? Or does the officer need to have additional information about the driver before they are allowed to make the stop?

The fact that the owner of a vehicle has a suspended license is not evidence that a crime was committed, but only that he has opportunity to do so. That may warrant further investigation, but does this include stopping someone with no evidence that a crime was even committed? What if a court has ordered that a person stay 100 feet away from their spouse, who happens to live in a house owned by that person? Does that give an officer probable cause to enter the house at any time because common sense says that most homes are occupied by their owners? Does the fact that there’s an opportunity for the person to commit a crime mean your rights no longer matter? Do you really want to live in a country where the mere belief that a crime is possible is enough for you to be stopped and your property searched?

Are you willing to give up all of your liberty for the false promise of a little bit of safety?

Paul Engel

Like many of you, I am a product of the public schools. Like many of you I thought the Constitution was for lawyers and judges. One day I read the Constitution, and was surprised to find I didn't need a law degree to understand it. Then I read the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers and even the Anti-Federalist Papers. As I learned more and more about our founding fathers and documents I saw how little we know about how our country was designed to work and how many people just didn't care. I started The Constitution Study to help those who also want read and study our Constitution.