HIGH COURT BACKS AGENT WHO STOPPED MOTORIST

Ruling: In case of drug smuggling, justices say police need only a
reasonable suspicion, not evidence of a crime, to pull over a vehicle.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court reaffirmed Tuesday that police have broad
leeway in deciding when to pull over vehicles and that they may rely on
innocent-looking actions as grounds for their suspicions.

Even slowing down at the sight of a parked squad car or driving a minivan
can be a factor that weighs in favor of stopping a motorist, the justices said.

The unanimous ruling revived marijuana-smuggling charges against an Arizona
man whose slow-moving minivan was stopped by a Border Patrol agent near the
Mexican border. More significant, the high court used the case to reiterate
that there is no "neat set of legal rules" to say when officers have the
required "reasonable suspicion" to stop a motorist.

The pretext must be more than "a mere hunch" but can be well less than
actual evidence of wrongdoing, said Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.
Officers can rely on a "common-sense inference" from what they observe to
decide when a vehicle should be pulled over. And judges should not casually
second-guess these decisions, Rehnquist added.

The ruling marked another Rehnquist reversal of an opinion written by Judge
Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles, one of the liberal leaders of the U.S.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Rehnquist and Reinhardt differ on their interpretations of the 4th
Amendment, which forbids "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the
government.

Decision Reverses Los Angeles Judge

Rehnquist has insisted that judges should not tie the hands of police
officers. Reinhardt has argued that judges should protect the privacy of
pedestrians and motorists by limiting the police from conducting searches
without warrants.

They clashed over a case that began on a January afternoon in 1998 in
southern Arizona. Agent Clinton Stoddard noticed a minivan traveling on a
dirt road north of Douglas, Ariz. Smugglers frequently take such back roads
to avoid checkpoints on the highways.

When the minivan approached Stoddard, it slowed abruptly and the driver sat
rigid, avoiding eye contact. In the back seat were children whose knees
were visible, as if they were resting on something large.

When the minivan suddenly turned onto another remote road, the last turn
before a checkpoint, the agent decided to stop the vehicle. After
questioning the driver, Ralph Arvizu, the agent learned that he lived in a
neighborhood known for smuggling and drug-dealing. Stoddard then searched
the minivan and found a duffel bag with 128 pounds of marijuana.

When Arvizu appealed his case, the 9th Circuit ruled that it involved an
"illegal stop" because the agent had relied on too many innocent actions as
grounds for stopping the motorist.

"Slowing down after spotting a law-enforcement vehicle is an entirely
normal response," Reinhardt wrote, and does not indicate criminal activity.
The same is true of driving a minivan and of failing to make eye contact
with a police officer. Moreover, the driver had committed no traffic
offenses, he said.

It is important that courts "clearly delimit" the factors that warrant the
"stopping and questioning of citizens who are minding their business,"
Reinhardt wrote.

Civil libertarians have faulted the high court for giving police unchecked
authority to stop vehicles. This can lead to "racial profiling" against
minority motorists and can result in annoying and unwarranted stops, they say.

ACLU Study Used By Defendant's Side

One brief filed with the court noted that a study by the American Civil
Liberties Union found that of 34,000 highway stops by the California
Highway Patrol in 1997, only 2% resulted in arrests.

But the Supreme Court took up the government's appeal in U.S. vs. Arvizu,
00-1519, and reversed the 9th Circuit. The chief justice said that searches
should be judged by "the totality of the circumstances" and that a variety
of factors tipped the balance in favor of stopping Arvizu. He was driving
along a dirt road on a route used by smugglers and taking actions that
seemed intended to avoid the police.

"Undoubtedly, each of these factors alone is susceptible to innocent
explanation," Rehnquist said. "Taken together, we believe they sufficed to
form a particularized and objective basis for Stoddard's stopping the vehicle."