Content area
Full Text
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002)
I. INTRODUCTION
In United States v. Arvizu,1 the Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit investigatory stops as long as the facts and circumstances lead to a reasonable suspicion that the driver is engaged in criminal activity. This Note argues that the decision in United States v. Arvizu is correct in spite of counterarguments that the decision encourages racial profiling and permits an officer to stop a vehicle for any reason. First, the prior investigatory stop cases of United States v. Sokolow,3 United States v. Cortez,4 and United States v. Brignoni-Ponce,5 which hold that an officer may make an investigatory stop if the totality of the circumstances leads to a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, support the Arvizu decision. Second, examining the facts and circumstances of each case is the best method of determining whether the investigatory stop is constitutional. Third, the reasonable suspicion analysis should view the facts and circumstances from the perspective of law enforcement because of their experience and familiarity with criminal behavior and their knowledge of common practices in illegal drug and alien smuggling. Finally, the suggested effects of racial profiling and an officer's ability to stop a vehicle for any reason will not occur because the analysis requires specific, articulable facts.
II. BACKGROUND
A. FROM PROBABLE CAUSE TO REASONABLE SUSPICION
The Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals "against unreasonable searches and seizures,"6 applies to investigatory stops where the individual has not violated any law.7 Generally, the Fourth Amendment requires individual suspicion and probable cause to conduct a search.8 However, in certain circumstances, individual suspicion and probable cause are replaced with reasonable suspicion due to the necessity for "swift action predicated upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat."9
In Terry v. Ohio, an officer observed two men standing on a street corner.10 Over a period of approximately ten minutes, the officer observed the men walk down the street, peer into a store window, and return to the street corner almost twelve times between the two of them.11 A third man next appeared, briefly spoke to the two men, and walked away.12 The two men then walked back to the store window where they met the third...