Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-556_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

4 

KANSAS v. GLOVER 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

This has it backwards: The State shoulders the burden to 
supply the key inference that tethers observation to suspi-
cion.  The majority repeatedly attributes such an inference 
to Deputy Mehrer.  Ante, at 4, 6, 9.  But that is an after-the-
fact gloss on a seven-paragraph stipulation.  Nowhere in his 
terse submission did Deputy Mehrer indicate that he had 
any informed belief about the propensity of unlicensed driv-
ers to operate motor vehicles in the area—let alone that he 
relied on such a belief in seizing Glover.  Ante, at 1–2. 

The consequence of the majority’s approach is to absolve
officers from any responsibility to investigate the identity
of a driver where feasible.  But that is precisely what offic-
ers  ought  to  do—and  are  more  than  capable  of  doing.  Of 
course, some circumstances may not warrant an officer ap-
proaching a car to take a closer look at its occupants.  But 
there  are  countless  other  instances  where  officers  have 
been  able  to  ascertain  the  identity  of  a  driver  from  a  dis-
tance and make out their approximate age and gender.  In-
deed, our cases are rife with examples of officers who have 
perceived more than just basic driver demographics.  See, 
e.g.,  Heien,  574  U. S.,  at  57  (officer  thought  that  motorist 
was “ ‘very stiff and nervous’ ”); United States v. Arvizu, 534 
U. S. 266, 270 (2002) (officer observed an “adult man” driv-
ing  who  “appeared  stiff”);  United  States  v.  Ross,  456  U. S 
798,  801  (1982)  (officer  pulled  alongside  car  and  noticed 
that the driver matched a description from an informant); 
Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S., at 875 (officers stopped a vehicle
whose occupants “appeared to be of Mexican descent”).  The 
majority  underestimates  officers’  capabilities  and  instead 
gives them free rein to stop a vehicle involved in no suspi-
cious  activity  simply  because  it  is  registered  to  an  unli-
censed person.  That stop is based merely on a guess or a
“hunch” about the driver’s identity.  Wardlow, 528 U. S., at 
124 (internal quotation marks omitted).

With no basis in the record to presume that unlicensed 
drivers routinely continue driving, the majority endeavors