CrimProf Blog

Editor: Kevin Cole
Univ. of San Diego School of Law

Friday, January 3, 2014

"A First Look at Navarette v. California: Are Stops Governed by the Rules of Terry or By Case-by-Case Reasonableness?"

Orin Kerr has this post at The Volokh Conspiracy.In part:

When the Court granted cert, I thought that the issue in Navarette was just about the standard of “reasonable suspicion,” the standard required to make a Terry stop. But the California brief takes a different approach. Instead of just asking when “reasonable suspicion” exists, California asks the Court engage in interest balancing on a case-by-case basis. In California’s view, the reasonableness of a stop isn’t based on whether Terry‘s reasonable suspicion standard has been satisfied in the abstract. Instead, California sees Terry as merely one application of reasonableness balancing, and it asks the Court to engage in interest balancing afresh by considering the nature of the crime to be investigated when assessing whether the stop was reasonable. The basic idea is that drunk driving is so serious a problem that stopping a car for suspected drunk driving requires less cause than would a stop for a less serious offense. The more serious the crime, the less suspicion is needed.

| Permalink


Of course one has to ask how did you suspect how serious the crime was? Was it seriously dangerous weaving, texting, or was the guy driving black?

Posted by: Liberty1st | Jan 4, 2014 7:58:05 AM

Post a comment