United States v. Arvizu

A Border Patrol agent stopped Ralph Arvizu after observing several factors that appeared innocent on their own. The Supreme Court decided that courts must assess all the circumstances together when deciding whether an officer had reasonable suspicion for a Fourth Amendment stop.

Justice Rehnquist wrote the 9–0 opinion, joined by Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer; Justice Scalia concurred.

The decision affects drivers stopped by Border Patrol and other police officers. For example, a court cannot dismiss each suspicious fact separately without considering how the facts may combine.

The Court has finished this case. Courts reviewing similar stops must use the totality-of-the-circumstances approach.

The Court said judges must consider all circumstances together when deciding whether an officer had reasonable suspicion for a stop.

Officers and courts may consider several facts together, even when each fact alone seems innocent. Drivers remain protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The case is finished. Courts must apply its totality-of-the-circumstances approach when reviewing similar Border Patrol or police stops.