Case No. 18-556 | Kan.
Preview by Michael Fischer, Online Editor
While driving in his Chevrolet pickup truck along a Kansas road in April 2016, Charles Glover was pulled over by Douglas County Sheriff’s Deputy Mark Mehrer on suspicion that Glover was unlawfully operating his vehicle. Prior to the stop, Deputy Mehrer had run a license plate check on Glover’s vehicle and learned that the truck’s owner, Charles Glover, previously had his license revoked. On suspicion that Glover was driving the vehicle without a valid license, Deputy Mehrer pulled Glover over and confirmed his identity. After confirming that Glover was in fact driving the vehicle, Deputy Mehrer issued him a citation for habitual violation of Kansas traffic laws.
At trial, Glover argued that the traffic stop violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. As a result, Glover contended, all evidence from the stop should have been excluded. According to Glover, Deputy Mehrer did not have reasonable suspicion to pull him over since he had inferred that the owner of the vehicle was the one driving the vehicle without actually confirming that Glover was the driver. The trial court found for Glover, holding that it was not reasonable for an officer to make such an inference, and granted his motion to suppress. The state appellate court reversed.
The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and held that allowing such an inference would relieve the state of the burden of showing reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop. The State of Kansas appealed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on April 1, 2019. The question before the Court is whether, for the purposes of an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the contrary.
The State of Kansas argues that an officer has reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle when the officer knows the registered owner cannot legally drive and there is no information that the owner is not the driver. Brief for the Petitioner at 9, Kansas v. Glover, No. 18-556 (U.S. filed June 17, 2019). Kansas argues that both state and federal courts have found that it is reasonable for an officer to infer that the registered owner of the vehicle will do most of the driving. Id. at 10. While the State concedes that it is possible for the driver of the vehicle not to be the owner in every situation, an officer’s suspicion that the owner is driving the car absent evidence to the contrary is nonetheless reasonable. Id. at 11–12. Furthermore, the State argues that the Kansas Supreme Court adopted a standard that was above a “minimal level of objective justification” when it required more evidence confirming that the driver was the vehicle’s owner. Id. at 20 (quoting United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)). Finally, the State contends that investigative stops like the one in this case are important to public safety and that requiring officers to gather more evidence is impractical. Id. at 21–25.
In response, Respondent Charles Glover asserts that the fact that an unlicensed driver owns a car does not establish reasonable suspicion that the car’s driver is engaged in illegal activity. Brief for Respondent at 10, Kansas v. Glover, No. 18-556 (U.S. filed Aug. 30, 2019). Glover argues that reasonable suspicion must be assessed with reference to the totality of the circumstances and because Deputy Mehrer neither actually observed nor could infer any illegal activity, his suspicion was not reasonable. Id. at 12–18. Additionally, Glover contends that the State of Kansas’s law enforcement interest in this category of seizures “does not justify its reliance on an unsupported and unparticularized inference.” Id. at 38. Instead, Glover argues, roving traffic stops based on unverified information of this nature severely burden individual freedom. Id. at 46.