Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
United States v. Arvizu | 534 U.S. 266 (2002)
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. In United States versus Arvizu, the United States Supreme Court considered whether a border-patrol agent’s stopping of a suspected smuggler was reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
In January of Nineteen Ninety-Eight, Agent Clinton Stoddard was working at a border-patrol checkpoint along US Highway One Ninety-One approximately thirty miles north of Douglas, Arizona. The roads in this area were equipped with magnetic sensors, or intrusion devices, to alert agents to traffic that would be consistent with smuggling activities. Around two-fifteen in the afternoon, Stoddard received a report that a sensor had been triggered and went to investigate.
Stoddard found the vehicle that activated the sensors. It was a minivan, a type of vehicle that’s popular with smugglers. The minivan slowed dramatically as it approached Stoddard. A man was driving, a woman sat in the passenger seat, and three children were in the back. Stoddard noticed the driver’s stiff posture and the way he kept his eyes glued to the road. Stoddard also noticed that the children’s knees were raised, as if their feet were resting on some cargo on the floor.
At this point, Stoddard decided to follow the minivan. The children started waving at him in an odd and mechanical way, as if they were being instructed to wave. They continued to wave on and off for a full four to five minutes. Then the driver turned abruptly onto the last road available to avoid the upcoming checkpoint. Stoddard radioed for a registration check only to learn that the minivan was registered to an address known for narcotics smuggling. Based on all of these factors, Stoddard stopped the minivan. The driver, Ralph Arvizu, consented to a search of the minivan. During the search, Stoddard found over one hundred pounds of marijuana.
The federal government charged Arvizu with possession with intent to distribute marijuana. During trial, Arvizu moved to suppress the marijuana, arguing that Stoddard didn’t have reasonable suspicion to stop him as required by the Fourth Amendment. The district court denied the motion. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that none of the relevant factors, viewed individually, led to reasonable suspicion. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
