October Term 2001 · Docket 00-1519
Does a traffic stop require ignoring relevant facts?
The dispute centers on whether officers must disregard specific facts during a stop.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
The government contends that the lower court decision conflicts with established precedent.
the opposing side maintains that the lower court applied the correct legal standard.
questions_asked_by_justices
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 39-5 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 39-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 43-13 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 43-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-37
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the standard for reasonable suspicion during investigative stops.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 39-5 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 39-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 43-13 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 43-13
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 27, 2001.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-37
What each side wants
The government wants the Court to allow officers to consider all relevant facts.
the opposing side wants the Court to require officers to disregard certain facts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 39-5 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 39-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 43-13 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 43-13
What each side says
The government argues that reasonable suspicion requires a common-sense evaluation of all circumstances.
the opposing side argues that the lower court correctly required ignoring specific details.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 39-5 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 39-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 43-13 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 43-13
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked who should receive due weight in evaluating officer conduct.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-37
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of police discretion during brief investigative stops.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 39-5 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 39-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 43-13 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 43-13
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 33-37 — Transcript, file page 50, lines 33-37
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 39-5 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 39-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 43-13 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 43-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 39-5 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 39-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-7 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 43-13 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 43-13
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.