United States v. Arvizu | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Argued November 27, 2001 Decided January 15, 2002 | |
Full case name | United States of America v. Ralph Arvizu |
Citations | 534 U.S. 266 (more) 122 S. Ct. 744; 151 L. Ed. 2d 740 |
Case history | |
Prior | Defendant convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Conviction reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 232 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court granted certiorari, 532 U.S. 1065 (2001). |
Holding | |
Under the totality of the circumstances, reasonable suspicion supported a border patrol agent's decision to stop a motorist traveling on an isolated road in a forested area of southern Arizona near the Mexican border, even if each of the reasons the officer gave for the stop, viewed in isolation, had an innocent explanation. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Rehnquist, joined by unanimous |
Concurrence | Scalia |
Laws applied | |
U.S. Const. amend. IV |
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously reaffirmed the proposition that the Fourth Amendment required courts to analyze the reasonableness of a traffic stop based on the totality of the circumstances instead of examining the plausibility of each reason an officer gives for stopping a motorist individually.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search