That vehicle, had the belief under common sense the registered owner was likely the driver, pulled the vehicle over, initiated the stop, cited the individual for being a habitual violator. That common sense belief is one that has been recognized by the judges in 12 state Supreme Courts, four circuit courts of appeals across the country and that is that finding the registered of the owner of the vehicle as a driveres a common sense inference absent information to the contrary. Some may argue that the existence of a suspended license would undermine that suspicion but of the 16 courts that i just mentioned, 11 of them have dealt with this precise situation and the judges of those courts have indicated that reasonable suspicion continues to exist even in that circumstance. Indeed the factual predicate for the habitual violator law across the country is that the registerregister ed owner may be continuing to drive. Were asking whether theres reasonable suspicion to investigate further. Here deputy mayor relied on the common sense understanding that a registered owner given the pervasiveness of automobile use in the United States was likely to be driving again warranted additional investigation. To borrow a phrase from terry, it would have been Poor Police Work for deputy mayor not to initiate the stop and investigate further to confirm or dispel his suspicion. At this point i would invite any questions from the court. Mr. Crouse, many of those cases you referenced involved at least an officer who testified, speaking about in his experience drivers tend to be owners. We dont have anything like that here. We have an officer who said he assumed that. Thats a pretty unusual youre asking us to make an inference about facts and there are no facts in the record at all. Zero. What do we do about that . To the contrary. We believe that the stipulations are the facts. Stipulations i understand it, though, the officer said he assumed. Yes. We dont have any in my experience, no nothing. Other than assumption. With regard to the stipulations, the parties have stipulated as to what the relevant facts were. If they believed there was information absent from those facts, they could have and would have done that. I think this courts cases have recognized, i believe it was the christian legal societys maybe im not being clear what im getting at. In most cases, officers have testified that in my experience. So we have some factual basis for a judge to then make a legal conclusion that the officers stop was reasonable. Here we dont have any facts from the government, from the officer. So i been experience or realities on the ground. Yet youre asking the judge to make a legal conclusion about certain facts on the ground that are not present in the record. Its almost like a judicial notice of facts not in record. Is that a thing . What i would agree with is that there is no evidence or testimony as to the history and experience of this officer. Rather, we know hes a certified Law Enforcement officer. None of the cases that ive found have relied upon an officers understanding of whether or not a registered owner is frequently the driver. Rather, the courts have indicated as a matter of common sense and ordinary Human Experience that the registered owner is likely the driver. I admit theres three cases that hold that, but the others do talk extensively about the officers experience. What i want to know is, and i thought that the kansas court had somewhat limited, although it had broadened corroborating, the question how corroboration could happen. But in most of the others that Justice Gorsuch is talking about, the officer doesnt say i assume. He says something more like this has been my experience, or this is the training, or the statistics that you put into the record in this case are presented to the judge. Why is the Supreme Court better able than the trial court whos the finder of fact to make decisions about what common sense teaches . So or with the lack of anybody within experience in the field, at least there was one judge below who said in my experience, that presumption doesnt make sense. And im presuming that three other courts have said the opposite, but the Supreme Court here, the kansas Supreme Court agreed with the judge below. Yes. So let me address a couple of things. First, we dont believe theres a legal distinction between assumption, presumption, inference, belief or otherwise. I think this courts cases, whether its terry, cortez, wardlow or the others refer to that term. So the reference as to assumption, we dont read a difference into that. Rather, what we understand is that reasonable suspicion is something of common understanding and ordinary Human Experience. Whether or not the registered owner is a driver is not something we would look to the Law Enforcement officers history and expectations about. Rather, those cases come up, such as cortez in which we would have an International Trafficking situation. Instead more like navaret, its common understanding that individuals will be driving under the influence and have certain behavior. In wardlow, flight from the presence of Law Enforcement officers would be something of common ordinary i think navaret had to do with the reliability of the tip and not with questions i know that the majority and the dissent in navaret argued about what the presumption would be. Thats why its so dangerous for us to make our own presumptions and not let the fact finder. One, i think this court has done it in navaret, there was a reliability issue, but also with regard to whether or not its sufficient to justify an investigation into that particular crime. Here the crime is driving while suspended. But the but the cause for the suspension can be a number of things that have nothing to do with safety on the roads. It could be i didnt pay my fine, i didnt pay court costs. It doesnt say anything about the drivers ability to drive safely. Thats right, justice was there a way of finding out why the license was suspended . Two things. One is this courts Fourth Amendment jurisprudence does not look to the underlying crime as to whether or not its a socially appropriate or wise policy choice that would justify the suspension. Rather, this officer has an indication that mr. Glovers license has been suspended and is incapable of operating a Motor Vehicle. Im asking the technology of it. Was there an easy way to push a button and say, oh, so the registered owners drivers license has been suspended because its not in the record, but my understanding is the answer is no. But even if there were, this Law Enforcement officer would not have the ability to say, you know, its driving while susp d suspended while failing to pay any number of tickets. I dont think im going to initiate the stop. This officer knows the registered owner is incapable of operating a Motor Vehicle and that gives sufficient suspicion in order to investigate further, much like the conduct that was in terry. Thats maybe perfectly lawful conduct and maybe its a good idea, maybe its a bad idea, but the officer at least has suspicion to generate additional inquiry. Make sure i understand. You concede if the officer acquires Additional Information in the course of the stop that suggests that his suspicion that this is the driver with the suspended license, is not the driver in that instance, the officer would not be able to pursue the stop further . Yeah. If, for example, its mr. Soandso whos the registered owner and the woman theres a woman driving the car, he would that would be the end of the matter, right . He would not be able to pursue the stop further . He would not be able to initiate the stop if information to the contrary had been present to him. The situation is looking for a 60yearold man and its a 22yearold female. That would dispel the reasonable suspicion. We have dealt with that question on probable cause. We have dealt with if there is exculpatory material in the presence of probable cause that a Police Officer is not required to take that into consideration. Youre suggesting a different standard for reasonable suspicion . Im not sure im understanding you correctly. Probable cause, if a defendant comes and gives you what seems to be a very reasonable explanation for why he did not commit this crime, we dont obligate Police Officers to investigate that reasonable explanation. We say probable cause exists and the officer can arrest on probable cause. Were creating a different rule for reasonable cause . Under reasonable cause youre prepared to say the rule is differe different. If you have reason to believe its not the driver, you shouldnt stop the car. I dont believe so. I believe our rule is a totality of the circumstances. But theres only one totality. So in his hypothetical, the situation was if the officer finds believes that theyre searching for a 60yearold man and is able to identify that the driver is a 20yearold female, then the suspicion that initially attracted the officer to that vehicle would be dispelled. Thats just an application of the totality of the circumstances. But you say there is no necessity for the officer to make that check . So thats what this courts cases have historically recognized. Once the existence of reasonable suspicion is there, then there is no necessity to investigate further, such as and the only basis of reasonable suspicion is not a totality of the circumstance, its one circumstance. The registered owners drivers license has been suspended, period. Thats the only factor. What is the totality in addition . So the totality depends on the particular crime that the officer is investigating. I concede to the court that the particular facts that the officer knew in this situation are frequently going to be determinative but rather our rule permits the recognition that there could be situations that would come to the officer. For example, if, again, its a convertible and youre able to see the person, that suspicion is going to be dispelled. Once the officer in this situation has reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop you say it would be happenstance that the officer was able to do this because the officer doesnt have to make any effort at all once he has once he knows the registered owners drivers license is suspended, he doesnt have to do one more thing. He can do a stop . He can initiate the terry stop to ask additional questions. If in obtaining the license and registration im sorry, the Registration Data behind the vehicle, he or she is capable of determining any characteristics of the driver, thats one thing. But, for example, if the driver was expected to be a 60yearold man and the officer was able to identify the driver and thinks, well, maybe its a 58yearold man, it may or may not be that individual, that suspicion is not dispelled. The stop would occur. Mr. General it seems to me that a lot hinges in your case on common sense assumption that the drivers of vehicles typically are the owners of the vehicle. Would you agree with that . I think thats yes. And that might be true in our contemporary, contingent reality. But the next generation, for example, often rents cars. They dont buy cars. They dont own cars. Youre asking us to write a rule for the constitution that presumably has some duration to it. Is this one with a short Expiration Date . So i dont think it is. I think it would be part of the totality that could potentially come up. I would envision a situation in which 20 or 40 or 60 years from now, maybe our operation of Motor Vehicles are different. Under these same facts, perhaps theres no stipulation. Perhaps the criminal defendant that has been stopped would like to cross examine the officer and say, you know, in 2019 the registered owners were frequently the driver. But our life has changed. Weve become the airbnb of society. That would be able something that the court would then be able to consider. General, do you know the florida v. Harris dog search case. Youre familiar with that . What struck me in this case is you are asking for a very different approach than we unanimously decided was proper in that case. It was a probable cause case but i dont think it makes all that much difference. The idea was that if you have a trained dog and it gives an alert, theres a reason to think that theres drugs in the car. And yet unanimously we said, you know, but at that suppression hearing, a person is entitled to say thats not all the circumstances that exist. We know something about the dogs history. We know something know somethin dogs history and training and some other circumstance. I think what youre asking us to do is essentially to say that all of those things become irrelevant, because we just have this single circumstance, which is that a a registered a nonregistered owner is driving the car. Yeah. So i actually think thats helpful, because it defends on the nature of the inquiry. Here its driving while suspended and the registered owner and connection to the driver is common. I think the dog alerted to a drug it was not trained to identify. And so that does thats a more nuanced characterization than whether or not an individual is driving their vehicle. For example, and by the way, mr. Glover could have cross examined on a similar sort of circumstance. He chose not to, because the parties agreed to the facts. Does it make a difference, that case was probable cause, this is reasonable suspicion. Is the level of inquiry or examination varied depending upon whether its probable cause or reasonable suspicion . Obviously Fourth Amendment, but the burden is much lower for an officer to justify the flethreshold is certainl lower, but why would we essentially throw out the totality of the circumstance s analysis and say this one fact is enough . Were not asking you to throw out the totality of the circumstance. You have to look at the crime implicat implicated. Those are relatively complicated crimes. I look at the cortez case in which the number of inferences in order to identify chevron as he was scurrying people across the border, those are some significant inferences that depend upon an educated understanding of the Law Enforcement officer i guess im just not seeing that. The question in the dog alert case, are there drugs or not in the car . The dog alerted. Thats a good reason to think there are drugs in the car. Still, there are other things that might be involved in a particular case. Yes, briefly. So i would say that in this situation, the database alerted mr. Glover had a license that had been suspended and he couldnt operate the vehicle. We dont know why the dog alerted and we have information as to the Officers Training experience to answer that question. Thank you, counsel. Mr. Houston . Mr. Chief justice, the Fourth Amendment asks Police Officers to be reasonable, not to set aside common sense when they step into the patrol car. The stop in this case was constitutional because it was based on reasonableness to think that Charles Glover might be the person driving the truck registered in his name. Thats an inference that Police Officers use all the time but this im sorry, please continue. Thats an inference we rely on in Law Enforcement situations, and the pref ra preference supports the re reliabili reliability. Reasonable suspicion is a minimal standard. The reason for that is that a traffic stop is much less intrusive than a custodial arrest, and the point of a traffic stop is simply to conduct further investigation. Justice gunsbuginsburg, can i p your question . The you say its reasonable to infer that the its a little less reasonable, sit not, when the owners license has been suspended . I think, your honor, it is marginably less probably, true. You are positing most people that have had their license suspended will break the law. I dont think were positing that, your honor. In every case, youring to have equivocal you just said marginally less. How do you know that, that its only marginally less opposed to significantly less . Your honor, we know that there are hundreds of thousands of citations in this country every year for driving on a suspended license. I think the statistics, the study thats identified on page 41 talks about some of these statistics. We have 7,000 fatalities involving unlicensed drivers. It turns on a common sense judgment that the officer made. I guess what im trying to say is what is that common sense judgment based on . I understand if it were based on a particular Officers Training, experience and judgment. Here we cant say its based on any of those things. So what is it based on . I would dispute to say it wasnt based on the Officers Training and experience. There are a wide reason of think of the case where the officer sees the car swerving and thinks that person might be break. Theres only one fact. I dont think we would say the reasonableness of the case of that stop turned on whether the cop said heres how often in my experience i found that people swerving end up being drunk. I think that dove tails with s cases. The court did not think that the per misability of a traffic stop turned on the testimony the office had given. I thought it was the opposite, that we want particular inquiry here. That we want some way of say things reasonable suspicion in this case. Not in for example, would you just say suppose we just had a statistic that said, you know, that 30 of drivers are likely to do this. Would you say that alone is enough, if its just statist statistical . Is the basis purely statistical . What is the basis . Your honor, the suspicion has to be particular and objective. But when the court has talked about particular, it means particular to this suspect. Not particular to this officer. But the stop has to be particularized to the information that was known by this particular suspect. Thats why to answer the question directly, a generalized statistic how many people in the world commit a certain kind of offense will not be efficient to establish getting to the particular person, doesnt that have to do with geography . Meaning i suspect there are some towns in the United States where people dont break the law no matter what. That if your license got suspended, the Police Officer knows in this jurisdiction. That presumption doesnt work, and without having the officer testify to where hes doing this stop, we dont know. So you really are asking us to have one presumption based on no evidence. Other than a stipulation that easy the driver of that vehicle or that vehicle belongs to someone whose license has been suspended. Your honor, were asking the court to hold as a matter of common sense and Human Experience, the owner of a driver is the the owner of the vehicle is very often the driver of the vehicle in the absence of information to the contrary. So based on geography or other conditions oh of the area, theres a different standard and excuse me, that is a generalized statistic then, no . To point out what Justice Kagan was saying, are you relying on a generalized statistic, and you said no, but in answering justice sotomayor, youre saying the common sense is based on this general idea that people are driving their own cars. My point was a generalized observation how many people in the world commit a certain crime suppose that a municipality has a law that says everybody has to carry their license with them at all times. Suppose a particular Police Department did a survey or a study of their practices and found that 50 of teenagers do not carry their license with them at all times, all right . So now its common sense that if you see a teenager, she wont be carrying her drivers license with her. Does that give the Police Officer the ability to stop every teenager he sees . Generally not. Thats what it means for the suspicion to be how is that different from this case . You pull over a teenage driver because you suspect theyre texting, and there are statistics on that . So its the same hypothetical. And disting wish that from the case. The officer needs something that identifies the particularized suspicion that this driver is committing a climb. Theres particular suspicion, look, shes a teenager. Unless that evidence correlated so strongly, at a certain point, the evidence becomes so overwhelming theres a particular behavior that it would provide reasonable so why isnt the requirement, as the kansas court suggested, that you have to corroborate, and i take that word very generally, that if you can safely, because no one is asking Police Officers to do things unsafely, okay . But at least drive by and see its an older person, make sure its not a woman. Do something besides permitting one fact to drive a conclusion thats no different than a generalized suspicion. Its not nearly as safe to do that as one might suppose, as we explained in our dreef. Officers are trained to keep their vehicles behind a suspicion, because thats the safest place for them to be. This court has repeatedly there are plenty of Police Officers that let someone they want to stop move forward from where they are and pull in behind them. Theres a whole lot of things that can be done to do that. If the officer does that, your honor, if the officer gains that type of information, that would be part of the totality of the circumstances. But this court has explained in sokolo, where an officer develops reasonable suspicion, a traffic stop is authorized, and the per misability does not depend on other techniques the officer might have pursued. You can make the argument, every defendant would say theres always something the officer could have done to investigate any further. The point of the reasonable suspicion standard is to be a minimal standard, because the purpose is simply to conduct further investigation. Thank you. Thank you, counsel. Thank you, mr. Chief justice. Kansas and the United States asked this court to adopt a nationwide rule its reasonable to assume that a car is being driven by its unlicensed driver. But in three briefs, they have offered no way for this court to assume that is a reasonable assumption. They disclaim reliance on officers experience and statistical evidence. They simply assert that its common sense in every circumstance and in every community in the country. But thats not true, and thats now how the Fourth Amendment works. Here the only fact that would give rice to suspicion of illegal activity is the activity of the driver. The officer stipulated that he had no idea who was driving. And the officer decided not to testify at the suppression he hearing to explain why an unlicensed driver would be driving his car. The Fourth Amendment requires a context yule analysis. Th nothing about this case or this context would support departing from that ordinary contextual type of analysis. In an ordinary case, it would be relatively easy for an officer to establish reasonable suspicion that a car is or is not being driven by its unlicensed driver. Here kansas city didnt do the work, so this court should affirm. Ms. Harrington, that last bit is what interests me. That its a minimal burden that you would impose on the state. It does seem like in many of the cases on which the government relies, theres an officer that comes in and says well, in my experience, owners drive their cars. If thats all at that at issue here is that kansas forgot, me glegt meneglected to put an offic on the stand to say that, whats at stake here . Its almost a formalism that youre asking the court to adopt here. The question suspect whether an owner usually drives his car but whether an owner that doesnt have a valid drives fine, fine, the officer will now come in and say i mean, were just asking for a magic incantation of words. Maybe he will or wont, we dont know what the officers experience is. Really . What if the officer in this case said i was trained that the driver of a car is usually the owner, even when the driver has a suspended license . Would that be enough . It might be, but there could be an opportunity for crossexamination well, there was an opportunity here for your client to put in any evidence that he wanted, and to subpoena any evidence he wanted. Certainly. But kansas stipulated if you look at the hearing transcript thats not responsive to my question. If that was done, if thats all youre asking for, would that be enough . The officer says this is how i was trained. No, you need the opportunity for crossexamination. Was there an opportunity for crossexamination here . But there if the officer had made that showing and made that factual assertion, my client would wanted to cross examine. But they didnt rely if you could return to my question briefly, if an officer comes in and says these magic words, whatever they are, and thats the sum total of evidence in the case, in my experience, in my training, whatever, is that good enough to satisfy the constitution in your view . It may be. Okay. That could be said in every single reasonable suspicion case. Theres always something the officer can come in and say. But the point of the suppression hearing is you want to hear what the officer is going to actually say. Its common sense to think that the rate at which suspended drivers drive is going to vary. Just to finish your line of questioning, its mine too, did the defendant have the opportunity to ask those questions of the officer . Yes. If the state had chosen to rely on the officers experience, we would have asked questions about that. But if the state chooses to truncate, its not up to the defendant to say thats not the state. Its not a huge burden the state has to do. Ms. Harrington, do you think its totally random who the driver is . Its registered to fred jones, but it could be anybody in the world. No. Do you think its the odds that its fred jones are 5 . In other words, there could be 95 people that you dont know driving the car registered to fred jones, but theres a 5 chance that its him . Youre asking if thats enough for reasonable suspicion . Im asking if you think that, whether its reasonable or not. Do you think its at least a 5 chance, that the owner of the car is driving the car. On a suspended license . Just in general. Yes in general. Where are you going to stop . Its fred jones car, being driven, and when the officer goes out, he sees that its whatever fred jones, is middle age man, and not a teenage girl, is it still sit maybe one out of ten chances . I dont know what it is. You dont think its one out of ten . I think it is probably one out of ten that an owner with a valid license is driving his car. Probable cause is somewhat less than 50 . Even you are willing to agree its at least 10 . Yes. Somewhat is the reasonable suspici suspicion cutoff . None of us can say. Most of us can say. The reason is, reasonable suspicion doesnt have to be based on specialized experience or statistics. It can be based on common sense. Im sure that the number varies. Im sure if youre in the neighborhood that has a lot of kids who will drive their parents car, thats fine. If its an area you dont, thats fine. Reasonable suspicion doesnt depend on the find of showing im not saying that the state has to put in any particular type of evidence. If theyre just relying on an assertion of common sense. If theyre relying on common sense, they dont have to give you anything more than common sense. How do we know if its common sense . I already got you to 10 . Thats owners who have valid license. I dont think its common sense to think someone having a suspended license is going to have no effect on whether or not they drive. I think the inference cuts the other way. I think its more likely than not he would break the law saying you cant drive with a suspended license. We dont know that, because in many states its the ability to pay fines that results this court has never held that evidence you committed x crime this is collateral to your basic proposition. Your proposition is it doesnt rise to reasonable suspicion e our basic proposition is its not a reasonable inference when fred jones does not have a valid license. Its not reasonable to think that the rate of driving on a suspended license is going to be the same around the country. Compared to someone who lives in a rural place in your opening you said it would be easy for the police to establish whether the driver is the owner. What are you basing that on . There are a lot of things that they can do. 23irs first of all, an officer could say, in my experience, nine times out of ten when a hit like this comes up on the computer, its the owner with a suspended license. Can i go back to a second . I would like to finish with that same reaction or a step further. I go outside, we go outside, theres a car driving. We happen to know the license plate, and that plate tells us that Charles Smith owns the car. We see a friend. He says i reasonably suspect that its Charles Jones driving that car. Would you say the friend is wrong to reasonably suspect that charles is driving the car . No. Now we add another fact. I would like to tell you a fact. On my side this time, the state told you the other fact. Iteming you this one. His license was suspended. Now, he says, you know, thats a good point. But i still reasonably suspect hes driving. Now, would you say that now that person is wrong . Yes, you would, but youre asking me to say that person the question youre asking me to say that that person who still suspects that charles is driving is unreasonable. Thats pretty tough for me to say that that person is wrong, unreasonable when he still suspects it. Now, there we are. And i cant get any further in this case. It may be that you have found some precedent that shows this initial reaction, which im showing you, is totally wrong. And i would like to know what it is, because ill go read it. All of this courts Fourth Amendment cases, which you have to look at the toe tality of circumstances. Im not assuming illegal activity. You are if you it happens to be. All im assuming is a fact. All i want to know is a fact. Is charles driving the car . Its different from the teenager. I would point you to a case United States versus ponce and brown versus texas. Two case where is this court said you cant do what youre saying. In brown versus texas, there was someone in an alley walking away from another person in a high crime person and the officer stopped him. And the court said its not enough that he was present in a high crime area or the probability that he was doing something illegal was higher than if he was somewhere else. And a footnote says including just the officer explaining why what is youre referring to experience and making a distinction between the rookie cop and the bun on the beat for a long time. Maybe you know something more about the drive herbs history. It could come up he was charged as an habitual offender. I think i asked the question whether theres an easy way to find out what was the reason for the suspicion and the answer to that question was, no. Thats probably going to vary from community to community. Tell me how you think the police can safely verify that their suspicion is the owner of the driver is accurate . As i said, you can do things short of verifying it. If this hit comes up, and nine times out of ten, if you know something specific that this person has been caught driving on a suspended license. This stuff happened in an area where there were multiple lanes of traffic. There was a spotlight at the corner. It could not have been dangerous for the officer to take a glance and do you have any statistics to support that proposition . I dont. It woubut that is certainly f what officers do. They examine the circumstances and surroundings. I have noticed since taking this case on how difficult it is to see the face of a driver in front of me just by looking in their mirror, and there are circumstances where you can do it and its not difficult. If he peers into the window and you cant see, youre saying if he in that case, he cant make the stoop, he has to let the driver go . Unless he can rely on his experience with i mentioned one of the problems with experience, if youre making a distinction between the rookie cop, who doesnt have any experience, and the veteran. Thats going to be true in every Fourth Amendment context, where you rely on the officers experience. What about the manual that says, stay behind the car that you suspect . If such a manual exists and its not in the record, you would need to rely on one of the other methods of establishing reasonable suspicion. One thing officers testify is how the person tested is how they reacted to the officers presence. You want the officer therefore to follow the driver until they make a lane change or until they go too quickly on the right turn on red or dont come to a full stop. What sense does that rule make if i think thats one option. These an option you articulated in the brief, but im trying to figure out what purpose that would serve. Instead of stopping right away, im going to follow you until you go 31 to 30 and then immediately pull you over. This court said in delaware versus prius, that is the way these laws are generally enforced. Fi understand you correctly, you dont really require that anybody be followed until they do something wrong, and you dont really require that a Police Officer checks out who is sitting in the front seat. A Police Officer could do neither of those things, as long as the Police Officer shows up to the suppression hearing and says, i base this on my training and my experience, and subjects themselves to some form of crossexamination. How much experience does he have to have . How many times does he have to stop a car because he thinks i guess how does he get experience if he cant do it the first time . If he has another basis of doing it i dont know. Its just like the dog, right . Somebody certifies and trains me. Ive seen this done by my partner. I heard about it being done by other people in my department. Its just you subject yourself to something, which is the point of suppression hearings, suspect it . Right. This court held that courts should deaf to the Community Based experience of Law Enforcement officers and trial judges. That was a probable base. Probable cause is more than reasonable suspicion. So it may be the case that you dont need the same level of training and experience and back ground to make the assumption that you have said is at least 10 . You may need less, but the type of an less, theres no reason it would be different lets say a Police Officer pulls up behind a car after having is behind the car after having obtained information that the registered owner of the car has a suspended license. What are all of the considerations that you think the officer has to take into account before initiating a stop . Trying to check with headquarters as to the basis for the license suspension, whether its an urban or rural area or someplace in between. Whether its a highway or industry street. Whether its range or dark or whether its a law asubiding community. The officer has to take into account. He has to take into account the sort of full factual contents. After having done that, and when there is a motion to suppression the judge has to take into account all of those factors. Well, it wasnt really a rural area or a city, it was some sort of in between. And it was raining, but not raining hard. All those things could depend on an evaluation of all of those factors . Just like in any Fourth Amendment case, you have to look at the full context. Here we did not hear from the local Law Enforcement. We did hear from the trial judge. She said based on her experience in the community of lawrence, kansas, this was not a reasonab reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion can never be based on one fact . It depends on the fact. If you see someone running out of a bank with an alarm going off with a ski mask, thats enough to raise suspicion. How about a swerving car . It depends on the situation. Sometimes yes . Sometimes yes. This court did cite studies about the observable behavior on the question Justice Kagan followed up with you on, on page 35 and 36 of your brief, you say i say the officer can do that. We earl not trying to say were not asking you said its relatively easy for an officer to do this by tracking the driver until the driver does some minor traffic violation. And then you can pull the driver over. In delaware, that case did not involve someone with a suspended license. They were looking for people who were unlicensed. Thats what they were looking for. They didnt have information that the owner of the car in question they didnt that was my whole point. Thats true. My point is that the court said that is the ordinary way you enforce these laws, so theres nothing extraordinary about saying thats one option. When i talk about how its easy for officers to do this, theres no special justification im just trying to figure out what sense that makes. You made a point in the brief, the officer should just follow them around until they do something. Wrong on the traffic laws. Do you think that really is a sufficient basis to stop someone if they had gone another mile down the road because he swerved or just barely exceeded the speed limit . If the officer has no other reasonable suspicion, they have a hunch and want to follow that up on. They can youre encouraging protectual stops. Thats fine. It doesnt matter the subjective motivation. If they see something that creates objective probable cause. You mentioned peering into the windows at something that could be done. In some cases, yes. Theres a whole number of things an officer can do to do more than just say im just assuming the unlicensed owner is driving the car. I think the word formal was used. In every case what happens is that the Police Officer goes to the hearing, testifies, either my manual said stay behind the car, or in my experience, when ive done stuff, its the registered owner who is the driver. That would be thats okay . That would probably be type. I say probably, because this court said we dont adopt bright line rules. Well, if these the case im sorry, chief. He doesnt have to say in his experience the registered owner is the driver, right . He just has to hit 1 out of 10 times. Or 2 out of 10. In my experience, ive done ten of these and twice was the driver. That strikes me as the right number. This court has never put a number on it and said we cant put a number on it. That might be enough, it might not be. If it is, and if your answer to Justice Ginsburg is correct is that all an officer has to say is in my experience, one out of ten or 20setwenty, why shoul we read the declaration here as effectively saying that . That i assume im an officer, this is what i do. I assume this is the driver. This is kansas, not d. C. Touche. Why cant that a fair reading of the declaration before us . Then its on the defendant, if the defendant wishes to raise questions, about the dogs training and sniffing abilities and record with different substances, to raise questions about the Officers Training and experience or locality, circumstances in lawrence, which is a very law abided community. Im sure. Or whatever. Why shouldnt we read this as exactly what you say would be sufficient . I think sometimes because that isnt what it says. It just said he assumed i understand counsel, its a different formulation of words, be why cant it practically or really exactly what were talking about . It just says i assume the owner is the driver. So its all magic words . Its not going to be very hard in most cases. I read the lower court, the Supreme Court, kansas Supreme Courts words. It says when a court draws inpresences in favor of the state based on a lack of evidence in the record, it relieves the state of its burden. And carefully it says here the problem is not that the state necessarily needs significantly more evidence, it needs some more evidence. I think that has to be true. And the kansas Supreme Court said im not going to list all the different ways you can do it, but you have to do something. And thats sort of all were asking for. Thats somewhat this court has said time around time again, that you have to look at the toe at of circumstances, and you cant rely on a single fact that has a probability maybe to a crime. You have to come in and explain the basis for your suspicion. My friend talked about terry, but terry did not adopt a rule that any time walks by a store window three times, you have suspicion. They relied on the officers experience. Thats all were saying you should do, rely on other things the officer knew. Maybe in his experience, the database is unreliable. Maybe in his experience its reliable. You think in terry they needed statistics about the percentage of people who walk by a window three times have a criminal can inteintent . We dont think the state n d needs statistics. Theyre noll relative to the central question in this case. So our point is that statistics, you have to rely on good statistics. You said something that caught my attention. I think the officer was probably saying the right thing. In my experience, people that own cars are likely to be the drivers. End of the matter. Until you point out, not them, you point out that here the driver had lost his license. Now it becomes more difficult. You keep saying not a bright line rule. I dont see that. You want to add other things. What other things. If there were other things relevant to this, why not call the officer and ask him about them . And if you want to say no, no, thats unreasonable given my fact, given my fact, you probably didnt say that because actually the statistics show 75 , 60 , but not here. Da, da, da. But what is it that you think is that extra thing in the facts here that should have been in . I listed like ten things he could have done i didnt say that. I said, what is it im not talking about what he might have done, but what fact is there other than the two he pointed to, and the one you added, that you think was relevant . So the behavior of the driver could have been relevant. Im not asking could have been. I dont know. So your point is, you should decide all the facts, but i cant point you to a fact that wasnt that was relevant and wasnt decided. You say they shouldnt just he testified about his experience and strange. Maybe in his experience, 99 times out of 100, when you pull something over, its not ton licensed owner driving the car. The rule that kansas wants, any time someone borrows a car, theres nothing she could do to avoid being seized. That has to be strong evidence that the rule what you are proposing is either a trivial or revolutionary decision. Its trivial if all that is l k lacking a statement i had been trained, bla, bla, bla. Its revolutionary statement that if in every case, it has all the things you think are necessary here. What were asking for is that the ordinary Fourth Amendment analysis will required in every case. It just requires something to support the reasonableness of an assumption. Thank you, counsel. Three minutes, general cross. Thank you, mr. Chief justice. I would like to start with the Officers Training and experience. The reason that isnt in this case, mr. Glover failed to raise any question as to the Officers Training and experience until the red brief in this court. See page four of our whose burden is it, isnt it yours . You have to prove the facts. We have proved the stipulated fact you could come in and say, he wore a red hat, thats why i stopped him. And they would come back and say thats not enough to make out reasonable suspicion. So if what theyre saying is makingsumption without telling us the basis is not enough. The point is, they stipulated to the facts that were relevant to the determination, and the kansas Supreme Court made a determination as to those facts. My point is, that didnt arise until the red briefing in this court. So we dont think its fair to criticize. If they wanted to indicate statistics, they had an opportunity to call that officer. Second, with regard to waiting for a violation, we think thats reasonable. If were going to eliminate reasonable suspicion, rather if theres a traffic violation, thats probable cause and thats not a basis. This courts decision indicated you dont have to wait for probable cause to initiate a stop. Third, statistics. We agree with the red brief that indicates statistics are present and frequently are going to be distinguished by the parties. Back to the stipulation. The parties agreed to the stipulations and presented them to the court. So it was a joint stipulation . The parties stipulated, yes, your honor. The rule that is proposed would require the officers to let this vehicle go at night because its impossible to identify. This courts case except for i believe a noknock warrant does not do that. The reasonable suspicion cases do not do that. Fifth, the states have a strong interest in regulating the roadways of the traffic situation here, and a strong Law Enforcement interest. If there is a report of a child you can finish your thought. A child abducted and we were looking for the mother, the officers would be reasonable to rely upon the license plate. Thank you, counsel. The case is submitted. The Hudson Institute holds a discussion on International Organizations and institutions like the united nations, the world trade organization, and the world bank. Watch that live today at noon eastern on cspan, online or listen live at the free cspan radio app. Csp cspans campaign 2020 is with President Trump live tuesday at 7 00 p. M. Eastern as he is in sun rise, florida. His first since changing his residency from new york to florida. Live coverage on cspan. Watch online or listen on the go with a free cspan radio app. During the week of thanksgiving, were featuring book tv programs showcasing whats available every weekend on cspan2. We begin tonight at 8 30 eastern with books on Corporate America. Ceo of Dicks Sporting Goods discussed the decision to stop selling goods in its stores. Then Charles Schwab talks about his firm, life, and career. And professor Pamela Newkirk whether diversity programs in Corporate America is working. Enjoy booktv on cspan2 every weekend. Cspan student cam 2020 competition is in full swing. Across the country, middle and high school sunlt students are t work. We would love to see your progress. Take us behind the scenes and share your photos using the studentcam2020 for a chance to win additional cash prizes. Still working on an idea . We have resources on our website to help out. Our Getting Started page at studentcam. Org has information to guide you through the process of making a documentary. Cspan will award 100,000 in cash prizes. All eligible entries must be received by midnight january 20th, 2020. The best advice i can give is not to be afraid to take your issues seriously. Let your voice be heard now. For more information, go to our website, studentcam. Org. Next, a look at the legacy of the Apollo Space Missions and the future of space exploration. The discuss was held at the National Academy of engineering. Well, welcome, everyone, to the National Academy of engineerings forum on human space flight, apollo, 50 years on. Im joined on stage today by six incredible individuals, each of wom whom have helped shape the history and future of human space flight. So ill get a little introduction. My name is dee