United States v. Sokolow

Supreme Court of United States
490 U.S. 1 (1989)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When determining if law enforcement officers have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment, courts must evaluate the totality of the circumstances, under which a series of acts, each of which may be individually consistent with innocent travel, can collectively warrant further investigation.

Facts:

Andrew Sokolow purchased two round-trip airline tickets from Honolulu to Miami for $2,100.
He paid for the tickets using a large roll of $20 bills, which appeared to contain about $4,000.
Sokolow traveled under the alias 'Andrew Kray,' a name that did not match the name 'Karl Herman' associated with the telephone number he provided.
His destination, Miami, was a known source city for illicit drugs.
The trip was unusually short, lasting only 48 hours for a journey that takes approximately 20 hours of flight time.
During his travels, Sokolow was observed to be nervous.
Sokolow and his companion did not check any of their four pieces of luggage for the trip.
He was dressed in a black jumpsuit and wore gold jewelry.

Procedural Posture:

Andrew Sokolow was indicted in the United States District Court for Hawaii for possession with intent to distribute cocaine.
Sokolow filed a motion to suppress the cocaine evidence, arguing the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion.
The District Court, a trial court, denied the motion to suppress, finding the agents had reasonable suspicion.
Sokolow then entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion.
Sokolow (as appellant) appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed Sokolow's conviction, holding that the DEA agents lacked reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.
The United States (as petitioner) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States.

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 the combination of several factors—such as paying for airline tickets with a large sum of cash, traveling under an alias, taking a short trip to a drug-source city, appearing nervous, and not checking luggage—collectively amount to reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment to justify an investigative stop?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist

Yes. The combination of these factors is sufficient to create a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. The court must evaluate the validity of such a stop by considering 'the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture,' rather than dividing evidence into rigid categories of 'ongoing criminal activity' and 'probabilistic' evidence as the Court of Appeals did. While any single factor, such as paying in cash or taking a short trip, might be consistent with innocent travel, when taken together they established a reasonable basis for suspicion. The fact that these factors may be part of a 'drug courier profile' does not detract from their evidentiary value when articulated by a trained officer. Furthermore, the reasonableness of the stop does not depend on whether less intrusive investigatory techniques were available.

Dissenting - Justice Marshall

No. The factors known to the agents at the time of the stop fall short of reasonably indicating that Sokolow was engaged in criminal activity. Upholding this conviction diminishes the Fourth Amendment rights of all citizens by endorsing stops based on a 'mechanistic application of a formula of personal and behavioral traits.' Each factor considered by the agents—a short trip, paying cash, nervousness, style of dress—describes a very large category of innocent travelers. Allowing a stop based on such a collection of non-criminal characteristics, which are part of a malleable 'drug courier profile,' subjects innocent individuals to unwarranted police harassment and detention without the required specific and articulable facts of ongoing wrongdoing.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the 'totality of the circumstances' test as the controlling standard for evaluating reasonable suspicion for Terry stops. It explicitly rejects more rigid, categorical frameworks that attempt to distinguish between 'probabilistic' evidence and evidence of 'ongoing criminal activity.' The ruling gives law enforcement significant deference in drawing commonsense conclusions from a series of individually innocent behaviors. By affirming that factors listed in a 'drug courier profile' can collectively form the basis for reasonable suspicion, the Court provided a practical endorsement of this law enforcement tool, shaping investigative practices at airports and other transit hubs for decades to come.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Sokolow (1989)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature