The question
Whether Officer Vanterpool had reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment to conduct a brief investigatory stop of R. W.
District of Columbia v. R.W.
What the Court decided
The Court reversed the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and remanded. Officer Vanterpool had reasonable suspicion to stop R. W., so the stop did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The court below erred by excising facts and weighing only the lateness of the hour and the slight movement of the car, which departs from the totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry that the Court's precedents require. Taking everything the officer observed together, he could draw the commonsense inference that the people in the car were trying to hide wrongdoing.
How the justices split
UnanimousPer curiam (unsigned)
Delivered by the Court
The Court held that Officer Vanterpool had reasonable suspicion to stop R. W. and so did not violate the Fourth Amendment. A brief investigatory stop is satisfied when supported by reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot, assessed under the totality of the circumstances, which forbids evaluating and rejecting factors in isolation. The D. C. Court of Appeals departed from these principles by excising facts and considering only the lateness of the hour and the slight movement of the car. On everything the officer observed, including two people fleeing an idling car unprovoked and leaving doors open as the driver backed out, he could draw the commonsense inference that the occupants were trying to hide wrongdoing.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court reversed the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and remanded the case.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court held that Officer Vanterpool had reasonable suspicion to stop R. W.
Source: syllabus, Held
The decision was issued per curiam.
Source: syllabus, lineup
The court below erred by considering only the lateness of the hour and the slight movement of the car, contrary to the totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court applied the reasonable-suspicion standard from United States v. Arvizu, 534 U. S. 266, requiring review of the totality of the circumstances.
Source: syllabus, Held