The 2019-20 Supreme Court Updates
During its 2019-2020 term, the United States Supreme Court (USSC) did not release many opinions that directly affected law enforcement. However, USSC issue a significant opinion addressing the validity of motor vehicle traffic stops upon reasonable suspicion that the motor vehicle’s operator possessed a suspended or revoked license.
In Kansas v. Glover, 589 U.S. – (2020), Douglas County (Kansas) Deputy Sheriff Mark Mehrer observed a 1995 Chevrolet 1500 pickup truck driven by a man. Mehrer ran the license plate through the Kansas Department of Revenue’s file service, andthe registration check indicated the plate was assigned to the truck and registered to Charles Glover, Jr. Mehrer was advised that Glover’s driver’s license was revoked. Based solely upon this information and belief that Glover was the driver, Mehrer executed a traffic stop. During the stop, Mehrer identified Charles Glover, Jr. as the driver, and he was charged with driving as a habitual violator. Glover later filed a motion to suppress all evidence seized during the stop. The district court granted Glover’s motion to suppress.
The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the district court, holding that Mehrer was unable to articulate reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify this stop, because his belief that Glover was operating the vehicle was only a hunch. The USSC granted certiorari (a writ or order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court) to consider the following issue: for purposes of an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment, is it reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the contrary?
In this 8-1 opinion, the USSC held that when law enforcement lacks information that would negate an inference that the person driving is the vehicle’s owner, an investigative traffic stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when conducted after running the vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner’s driver’s license has been revoked. In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court reviewed Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. The ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness. Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Fourth Amendment permits an officer to initiate a brief investigative stop when the officer has a specific and objective reason for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity that is considerably less than either preponderance of the evidence or probable cause. Reasonable suspicion does not have to be perfect. In articulating reasonable suspicion, officers are also permitted to make “common sense judgments and inferences about human behavior” according to the Court’s prior precedent in Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125 (2000).
States have a vital interest in ensuring that only those qualified to do so are permitted to operate motor vehicles and that licensing, registration and vehicle inspection requirements are being observed. Further, research has proven that drivers with revoked licenses frequently continue to drive and therefore pose safety risks to other motorists and pedestrians. Specifically, the USSC cited studies that found that 75% of suspended or revoked drivers continue to drive, and 19% of traffic fatalities involve an invalid operator’s license.
In the Glover case, Mehrer observed a male suspect operating a 1995 Chevrolet 1500 pickup truck. The deputy learned from running this license plate that the truck’s registered owner, Glover, had a revoked license. From these facts, Mehrer drew the common sense inference that Glover was likely the driver of the vehicle, which provided more than reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. Combining database information and common sense judgments in this context is fully consonant with Fourth Amendment precedent.
The Supreme Court did stress, however, that all seizures must be justified at their inception, taking the totality of the circumstances into account. Accordingly, the presence of additional facts before or during the investigation may dispel reasonable suspicion. For example, if the registered owner of the vehicle is identified as a male in his mid-60s, but the officer observed that the driver is a female in her mid-20s, the totality of the circumstances would not justify a stop absent some other violation of the law.
The United States Supreme Court’s opinion is significant because the nation’s highest court clarified the law concerning the execution of traffic stops for an offense that regularly occurs on Kentucky’s roadways – operating a motor vehicle on a suspended license. This clarification should greatly assist law enforcement as to when a traffic stop may be conducted upon a motorist for suspicion of driving while suspended.
