United States v. Cortez
449 U.S. 411 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An investigatory stop of a vehicle is permissible under the Fourth Amendment if, based on the totality of the circumstances, the law enforcement officers have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.
Facts:
- For months, Border Patrol officers found human footprints in the Arizona desert, indicating groups of 8 to 20 people were being guided north from the Mexican border.
- One recurring shoeprint had a distinctive chevron design, leading officers to nickname the guide "Chevron."
- Through observation of the tracks, officers deduced that "Chevron" led groups at night, on clear weekends, over a 30-mile path to a pickup point near milepost 122 on Highway 86.
- The officers further deduced the pickup vehicle would be large enough to hold the group, would approach from the east, and would return east after the pickup.
- On a clear Sunday night deemed likely for a crossing, officers surveilled the highway from a point east of the suspected pickup spot.
- They calculated the pickup would occur between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. and that the vehicle's round trip would take approximately 90 minutes.
- At 4:30 a.m., a pickup truck with a camper shell passed the officers heading west; at 6:12 a.m., the same vehicle returned heading east. It was one of only two such vehicles observed during the surveillance period.
- The officers stopped the vehicle, which was driven by Jesus Cortez, with passenger Pedro Hernandez-Loera, whose shoes matched the "chevron" print. Upon Cortez's consent, officers found six illegal aliens in the camper.
Procedural Posture:
- Cortez and Hernandez-Loera were charged with transporting illegal aliens in the U.S. District Court.
- The defendants filed a pretrial motion to suppress evidence from the vehicle stop, which the District Court denied.
- A jury found the defendants guilty, and they were sentenced.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed their convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the convictions, holding that the officers lacked a sufficient basis for the stop.
- The United States (petitioner) was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an investigative stop of a vehicle by law enforcement violate the Fourth Amendment when it is based on the totality of objective facts and rational inferences that create a particularized and objective suspicion of criminal activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. The investigative stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the totality of the circumstances provided a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the vehicle was engaged in criminal activity. The court established a two-part assessment for reasonable suspicion: first, the assessment must be based upon all the circumstances, allowing trained officers to draw inferences and make deductions from objective observations and patterns of criminal operations. Second, this assessment must yield a particularized suspicion that the specific individual being stopped is engaged in wrongdoing. Here, the officers did not act on a mere hunch; they meticulously pieced together numerous clues—the location, the distinctive footprints, the timing of crossings, the weather, the time of night, the type of vehicle, and its specific travel pattern—to form a coherent picture and a legitimate, particularized suspicion focused on this single vehicle.
Concurring - Justice Stewart
No. The stop was justified under existing precedent. The Border Patrol officers had discovered an abundance of "specific articulable facts" which, combined with rational inferences, fully warranted suspicion that the vehicle contained illegal aliens, as required by United States v. Brignoni-Ponce. The combination of the known smuggling pattern, the desolate terrain, the time of night, and the puzzling nocturnal round trip of a vehicle capacious enough to carry aliens provided more than enough justification for the stop without needing to articulate a new framework.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the 'reasonable suspicion' standard established in Terry v. Ohio, popularizing the 'totality of the circumstances' approach. It validates law enforcement's use of deductive reasoning, allowing them to connect a series of seemingly innocent, objective facts to form a particularized suspicion. The decision gives weight to the experience and specialized training of officers in interpreting these facts. This 'whole picture' analysis has become the bedrock of Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion jurisprudence for investigatory stops.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Cortez