No. The officer did not break the law. It's common sense to assume that the owner of a car is the one driving it. The police don't have to be 100% sure to pull someone over; they just need a 'reasonable suspicion' that something illegal is happening. Knowing the owner's license was revoked was a good enough reason to suspect the driver was breaking the law. This is fine as long as the officer doesn't have a clear reason to think the owner isn't the driver (like if the owner is an old man, but a young woman is driving).

No, the stop was legal in this specific case. The important detail is that the license was *revoked*, which in Kansas usually means the person is a very bad or repeat-offender driver. Someone with that history is more likely to keep driving illegally. If the license was just *suspended* for something like unpaid parking tickets, the officer's guess might not have been reasonable enough. Also, a driver can still prove a stop was unfair if they have extra facts on their side.

Yes. The police officer violated the driver's rights. The court's decision makes it too easy for police to stop people based only on a guess. It should be the government's job to prove it had a good reason for the stop, not the driver's job to prove they are innocent. This decision lets police stop cars without seeing any bad driving or even trying to see who the driver is, which could lead to unfair stops based on general information instead of what's actually happening on the road.

Yes, the stop was okay. I used common sense to guess that the owner, with a revoked license, was probably driving the truck since there was no other information suggesting someone else was driving. This kind of thinking is allowed when police have a good reason to believe someone might be breaking the law, even if they're not completely sure. The standard for reasonable suspicion is not about being absolutely certain, but about making practical judgments based on what is known at the time. Studies show that many drivers with revoked licenses keep driving anyway, and Kansas' laws for revoking licenses cover people who have shown they don't respect driving rules or are unfit to drive. This makes it even more reasonable to think a revoked owner would be the one driving their vehicle.

I agree the stop was constitutional because the owner's license was revoked, which in Kansas usually only happens for serious or repeated driving violations. This gives a reason to think they might keep driving illegally. But it would be different if their license was suspended for something unrelated to road safety, like unpaid tickets or fees. Then it wouldn't be as clear based on common sense alone that an unlicensed owner would likely drive anyway. Also, even when it's generally reasonable to suspect the owner is driving, the driver could still prove otherwise with additional facts, like if the officer knows the owner is old but sees a young driver. The revoked license is just a starting point - the final decision depends on the whole situation.

I disagree with the majority because they are changing the rules for how much proof is needed to pull someone over. They are letting police stop a car whenever they don't have information showing the unlicensed owner isn't driving - but it's supposed to be the other way around. The police are responsible for having a good reason to connect the car to a crime. The majority is basically saying officers don't have to figure out who is actually driving if they can. They are also letting them assume unlicensed owners drive a lot as a group, instead of making them point to reasons to suspect this specific driver. Letting judges use their own common sense instead of looking at the officer's training and experience takes away the professional judgment that is supposed to be part of the process. The majority's reasons for lowering the burden of proof don't make sense. Police don't need 'scientific certainty' but they do need to explain their reasoning. This makes it almost impossible for drivers to challenge bad stops. It also ignores that different states take away licenses for many reasons besides bad driving. I would stick with the rule that police need individualized suspicion, based on specific facts, to justify a traffic stop.

"Although a mere `hunch'does not create reasonable suspicion, the level of suspicion the standard requires is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, and obviously less than is necessary for probable cause. "

"[T] he Fourth Amendment permits an officer to initiate a brief investigative traffic stop when he has a `particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.'"

In Glover, a Kansas deputy sheriff initiated a traffic stop after running a registration check on a vehicle that revealed the registered owner's driver's license was revoked.

Based on those limited facts, the Supreme Court held that when an "officer lacks information negating an inference that the owner is driving the vehicle, an investigative traffic stop made after running a vehicle's license plate and learning that the registered owner's driver's license has been revoked is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment."

Indeed, the Supreme Court recently reiterated that "[t] he reasonable suspicion inquiry falls considerably short of 51% accuracy," and stated that "[t] o be reasonable is not to be perfect."

In assessing reasonable suspicion, we "cannot reasonably demand scientific certainty... where none exits," and must permit officers to make "commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior."

—holding an officer had reasonable suspicion sufficient to support a traffic stop where the officer had drawn the reasonable "inference that a registered owner with a revoked... driver's license might be the one driving the vehicle

"The standard `depends on the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.'"

But, given that we cannot, we lack any legitimate basis for finding their inferences in this case to be unreasonable and for substituting our own inferences and conclusions.

No. A police officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by initiating such a stop. The officer's inference that the registered owner of a vehicle is also its driver is a commonsense judgment that provides a sufficient basis for reasonable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment's reasonable suspicion standard is a 'less demanding' one that depends on the 'factual and practical considerations of everyday life.' The Court reasoned that this standard permits officers to make 'commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior.' The fact that a vehicle's registered owner is not always its driver does not negate the reasonableness of the inference, as reasonable suspicion does not require certainty. Furthermore, empirical data and Kansas's own license-revocation scheme, which is reserved for drivers who demonstrate a disregard for the law, support the reasonableness of inferring that a person with a revoked license might continue to drive. This commonsense inference does not require specialized law enforcement training and is sufficiently particularized to the vehicle's owner to satisfy the Fourth Amendment.

No. The stop was constitutional, but the majority's reasoning should be viewed narrowly. The key fact is that Glover's license was *revoked* under Kansas law, a sanction typically reserved for serious or repeated driving offenses. This history provides a strong reason to infer that such a person has a penchant for flouting driving laws and is therefore likely to drive without a license. The case would be different if the license were merely *suspended* for reasons unrelated to road safety, such as failing to pay court fees or child support, as that would not provide evidence of a disregard for driving laws. This initial presumption of reasonableness can be rebutted by the defendant with additional evidence, such as if the officer could have seen the driver was a different age or gender than the owner, or if statistical data showed a low 'hit rate' for such stops.

Yes. The traffic stop violates the Fourth Amendment because it impermissibly lowers the state's burden for proving reasonable suspicion. The majority's holding flips the burden of proof, allowing a stop unless the officer has 'information negating an inference,' rather than requiring the state to present facts supporting the inference. The decision relies on a judge's 'common sense' rather than the experience and expertise of a law enforcement officer, which is contrary to this Court's jurisprudence that evaluates reasonableness through the lens of a trained officer. This approach absolves officers of the responsibility to investigate where feasible and opens the door to stops based on demographic profiles or probabilities rather than individualized suspicion of ongoing wrongdoing.

The stop is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because I made a commonsense judgment that the owner of the vehicle, who had a revoked license, was likely the driver in the absence of any information to the contrary. This inference is consistent with the recognized state interest in ensuring that only qualified individuals operate motor vehicles and that licensing requirements are observed. The standard for reasonable suspicion is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence and less than is necessary for probable cause. It permits officers to make certain inferences from the facts known to them at the time of the stop, and to act on those inferences, even if they are not 100% accurate. The reasonable suspicion inquiry falls considerably short of 51% accuracy, and to be reasonable is not to be perfect. I am allowed to make commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior, and these inferences do not require scientific certainty. Empirical studies demonstrate that drivers with revoked licenses frequently continue to drive and therefore pose safety risks to other motorists and pedestrians. Kansas' license-revocation scheme covers drivers who have already demonstrated a disregard for the law or are categorically unfit to drive. The concerns motivating the State's various grounds for revocation lend further credence to the inference that a registered owner with a revoked Kansas driver's license might be the one driving the vehicle.

The stop was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment based on the fact that the registered owner of the vehicle had a revoked license. Crucially, the officer knew that Kansas almost never revokes a license except for serious or repeated driving offenses, which provides a reason to infer that a person with a revoked license will likely continue to drive. However, I would find this a different case if Kansas had barred the owner from driving on a ground that provided no similar evidence of his penchant for ignoring driving laws, such as failing to pay parking tickets or court fees. In that scenario, the inference that an unlicensed driver is behind the wheel would not be self-evident based on common sense alone. Additionally, even when a presumption of reasonable suspicion makes sense, the defendant may rebut it by showing that additional information dictates the opposite result, such as if the officer knows the registered owner is elderly but observes that the driver is young. The reasonable suspicion inquiry is not concluded simply because the owner's license is revoked - that is merely the first step in assessing the overall reasonableness of the officer's suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances.

The majority opinion breaks from settled doctrine and alters both the quantum and nature of evidence a State may rely on to prove suspicion. The majority flips the burden of proof by allowing a seizure whenever the officer lacks information negating an inference that a vehicle's unlicensed owner is its driver - but the State bears the burden to supply key evidence tying observation to suspicion. The majority's approach absolves officers from any responsibility to investigate the identity of a driver where feasible. It also impermissibly permits reliance on large-scale data showing unlicensed drivers' propensity to drive, rather than requiring officers to articulate factors supporting individualized suspicion in each case. Allowing judges to rely on their own common sense rather than an officer's experience further removes suspicion from the lens of a trained professional. The majority's justifications for lowering the State's burden lack merit. Reasonable suspicion does not require 'scientific certainty,' but some articulation of an officer's inferences and logic. The majority makes it nearly impossible for drivers to challenge unlawful stops, while ignoring that different jurisdictions revoke licenses for many non-driving reasons. I would adhere to established precedent requiring individualized suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, to justify a vehicle stop under the Fourth Amendment.

Kansas v. Glover

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot