And Thomas Jefferson with expenses. Pulled the vehicle over in a stop in the individual for being habitual violator. That believe the deputy mayor had is one that was recognized in 12 states Supreme Court, for circuit courts appealed across the country and that is the finding and register owner of the vehicle has a driver with a common sense with absent to the contrary. Some may argue that the existence of a suspended license would undermine a suspicion with the 16 courts, 11 have dealt with this precise situation and the judges of those courts have indicated with reasonable suspicion continue to exist even in that circumstance. The factual predicate for the habitual violator ball across the country is that the registered owner may continue to drive. The only thing we are asking here deputy mayor that a register owner that was likely to be driving with additional investigation. Afraid from carrie, it wouldve been more police work for him not to initiate and investigate further to confirm the suspicion. At this point i would invite any questions from the court. Many of the cases that you referenced involve at least an officer to testify. Speaking about his experience drivers tend to be owners. We dont have anything like that here. We have an officer who said he assumed that and its a pretty about facts in the record at all. 0. What do we do about that. To the contrary in the stipulation of the facts. I understand that the officer said he assumed. So we dont have any in my experience, nothing. To aspects of that. First with regard to the stipulation, the parties have stipulated as to what relevant facts were that they believe there was information absent to that they could have and would have done that. This court case has recognized the christian legal society. Maybe im not being clear at what im getting at. In most cases officers have testified that in my experience, factual basis for a judge to make a legal conviction that the officer stop was reasonable. We dont have any facts from the government from the officer with the experience or realities on the ground. Youre asking the judge to make a legal conclusion about certain facts on the ground that are not present. Its a most like a judicial notice not in record. What i would agree with, there is no evidence or testimony of the history and experience and we know the certified Law Enforcement officer and none of the cases i found with understating rather not the registered owner in the courts of indicated as a matter of common sense and ordinary Human Experience that the register owner is likely the driver. Im sorry. I was told there was three cases, the others to talk about extensively about the author ofs experience. What i want to know and i hope the court has somewhat limited or broadened and how there could be question about how cooperation could happen. But in those of the others and just talking about, the officer does not say i assume, he says something more like this is been my experience, or the statistics you put into record in this case while presented to the judge. Why is the Supreme Court better able than the trial court to make decisions about what and with anybody in this experience in the field, at least there was one judge who said in my experience that presumption does not make sense. And im pursuing that three of the Court Systems of the opposite of the Supreme Court agreed with the judge below. And after couple of things, we dont believe theres a legal distinction between up assumption for the otherwise. I think this court case is whether Carrie Cortez or any of the other referred to that term. That reference, we dont difference into that. But whether we understand a reasonable suspicion is something of common understanding, ordinary Human Experience of whether or not the registered owner is the driver not something that we would look at the Law Enforcement officer history and expectation. Rather those cases come up, cortez in which we have an International Trafficking situation. Instead its common understanding that individuals would be driving under the influence in particular cases. And slight from the presence of Law Enforcement officers would be something of common ordinary. And with the reliability of the questions. I know the majority argued about the presumption should be. Thats why its so dangerous. For us to make her own perceptions and not let the facts find. A couple of things, i think this court has and there was a reliability issue and also regard to whether it sufficient to justify investigation to that particular card. Here the crime is driving while suspended. But the pause to the suspension can be a number of things and has nothing to do with safety on the road, it can be a fine, court costs, it does not say anything about the ability to drive safely. Thats right just the. Was there a way of finding out why the license was suspended . Two things, one the Fourth Amendment doesnt look at the underlying crime as to whether or not its appropriate or a wise policy choice that would justify the suspension. Remember this officer has an indication that mr. Glovers license has been suspended let me talk with the technology, was there an easy way to push a button to say the registered owner drivers license has been suspended . It is not in the record but my understanding is the answer is no, even if there were, this Law Enforcement officer would not have the ability to say its driving while suspended for failing to pay any number of tickets, i dont think ill initiate the stop, this Law Enforcement officer knows the registered owner is incapable of lawfully operating a vehicle and gives assistants of suspicion to investigate for the parade much like the conduct, thats perfectly lawful conduct may be a good idea or maybe about idea but the officer has suspicion to generate additional inquiry. I want to make sure i understand. You conceive if the officer requires Additional Information in the course of the stop that suggest his suspicion that this is the driver with the suspended license is not the driver in that instance, you would the officer would not be able to pursue the stop further . For example, mr. Soandso who is the registered owner and the woman driving the car, that would be the end of the matter right. You not be able to pursue the stop further. He would not be able to initiate the stop if information to the contrary had been present. The situation is looking for a 60yearold man and a 22yearold female. That would be a reasonable suspicion. We have dealt with that question on probable cause, we have dealt with if there is exculpatory material in the presence of probable cause and a Police Officer is not required to take that into consideration. Youre suggesting a different standard for reasonable suspicion . Im not sure im understanding you. On probable cause is if the defendant comes and gives you which seems to be a very reasonable explanation for why he did not commit this crime, we dont obligate Police Officers to investigate that reasonable explanation. We say probable cause exists. In the officer can arrest on probable cause. Were creating a different role for reasonable cause. Under reasonable cause youre prepared to say the rule is different. If you have reason to believe it is not the driver, you should stop the car. I dont believe so, i believe our role is the circumstances and as i understand so theres really one fatality. Hypothetical, the situation was if the officer finds and believes theyre searching for 60yearold man and able to identify the driver is a 20yearold female, then the suspicion initially attracted officer to the vehicle, thats just an application did you say theres no necessity to make that check. Right, thats with the court case is. Recognizing the existence of suspicion is there then there is no necessity to investigate further. The only basis of reasonable suspicion is the circumstance, one circumstance is the Business Owners drivers license has been suspended. Thats only a factor. The totality depends on the particular crime of the officer investigating. I see to the court that the particular fact that the officer knew in the situation are frankly going to be determing. All row permits the recognition that there could be situations that would come to the officer. Again, a convertible and youre able to see the person and the suspicion will be dispelled. But once the officer in the situation has suspicion to initiate the stop they say the officer was able to do this because the officer doesnt have to make any effort at all once he knows that the registered owner drivers license has been suspended, he does not have to do one more thing, he can stop. He can initiate the stop after additional questions. License and Registration Data behind the vehicle, he is capable of determining the characteristics of the driver, that is one thing. But for a new example if the driver was expected to be a 60yearold man in the officer was able to identify the driver and thinks maybe its a 58yearold man that may or may not be the vehicle entrance individual, the stop would occur in the officer would approach the vehicle. Is seems to me that a lot changes in your case on common sense that the drivers of vehicles are typically the owners of the vehicle would you agree that questioning. Yes. And that might be true in our contingent historical reality but, the next generation for example often rent cars, they dont buy cars, they dont own cars. Would you ask us to write a role for the constitution that presumably has duration to it, is this one with a short expiration date. I dont think it is. I think it would be part of the totality that could potentially come up. I would envision a situation in which 20, 40, 60 years from now maybe operation of Motor Vehicles are different and under the same facts perhaps the criminal defendant that has been stopped would like to crossexamine the officer into into thousand 19, the register owner was frequently the driver but things have changed we become airbnb of the society and that would be that something that the court could consider. Are you familiar with that case, with reading this case, youre asking for a very different approach than we unanimously decided was proper in that case. Its a probable cause case but i dont think that much makes all the difference. The idea, if you have a dog that gives an alert, theres no reason to think theres drugs in the car. And yet unanimously we said but at the suppression hearing, a person is entitled to say, that is not all the circumstances that exist. We know something about the dogs history, we know something about the dogs training, we know something about other circumstance. I think what youre asking us to do is to say all of those, similar things in this context become irrelevant because as Justice Ginsburg said, the single circumstance which is that a registered nonregistered owner is driving the car. I think that is helpful because it depends upon what the nature of the inquiry is in here its driving while suspended in the registered owner in connection to the driver is common. Which regard to a trained dog to sniff out drugs, there the dog alerted to a drug that it was not trained to identify. So that is a more nuanced characterization than whether or not an individual is driving your vehicle because for example on a similar circumstance mission under mr. Glover chose not to because the parties agreed that the kind of driving while suspended. Doesnt make it different that the case was probable cause and this is reasonable suspicion. As a level of inquiry or examination vary depending upon whether its probable cause or suspicion. The inquiry is much lower and the burden is much lower to justify a recent investigative decision. The threshold is certainly lower. But why would it be that just because the threshold is lower essentially to throw out the totality of the circumstance and say this one fact is enough . We are not asking you to throughout the totality, you have to look at the particular crime that is implicated whether in florida or the United States. Look around at the company crimes. Advocate the cortez case in which the deductions in order to identify chevron as he was green people across the board. Those are significant instances that would depend upon an educated understanding of the Law Enforcement officer. Im not seeing that. The question in the dog alert case, are there drugs in the car or not drugs in the car. In the dog alerted, thats a good reason to think theres drugs in the car. But still were going further in saying theres other things that might be involved in a particular case. I would say in this situation, the database alerted that mr. Glover had a license that was suspended and he can operate the vehicle. We dont know why the dog alerted and we have information for the Officers Training experience to answer the questions. Mr. Chief justice may appease report. That asked Police Officers to be reasonable, not common sense into the patrol car. The traffic stop in this case was constitutional because it was common sense. It was reasonable for the officer to think that Charles Glover might be the person driving the truck registered in his name. The Police Officers used all the time in a range of Law Enforcement arrangements. Please continue. Thats the difference that we commonly rely on and long first met situations in the prevalence of these supports its reliability in this court has repeatedly explained that its a minimal standard. It significantly less then a preponderance of evidence than probable cause. The reason for that is for the traffic stop then custodial arrest and the point of a traffic stop just like every stop is simply to conduct further investigation. Can i pick up your question. You say is reasonable it infers that the owner is the driver, but is a rule less reasonable is it not when the owners license has been suspended . I think you honor, and may be marginally less probable but hearsay most people who have had their license suspended will break the law . I dont think were saying they will break the law your honor, in every case where you conducting a stop youre going to have facts in the whole point is to provide the safe opportunity for the officer could to conduct further investigations. You said marginally less, how do you know that that is only marginally less as opposed to significantly less . We know that there are hundreds of thousands of citations in this country every year for driving on a suspended license. Statistics show that page 41 of respondents breach talk about the statistics. We have other in this case that of offer the courts is distinct about 7000 fatalities involving unlicensed drivers. Its not the end of the day a detailed statistical question. As the court has repeatedly explained. It turns on common sense judgment that the officer makes. Heres what im tried to say what is the common sense judgment based on. I understand, this goes back to his question, based on a particular Officers Training and experience and judgment but here we cannot say its based on any of those things. So what is it based on . I would definitely dispute that it was not based on the Officers Training and experience. I think there going to be a wide range of times where reasonable suspicion turned on only one fact, think of this case officers driving caesar car swerving and thinks that person could be drunk, they might not but never reasonable suspicion to investigate further. Theres only one fact, i dont think we would say the reasonableness of the stop turned on whether the officer came into court and said here so often in my particular experience i found people who are swerving and up being drunk, i also think that the ride variety which explains we dont want the permissibility of a Fourth Amendment stop to turn on something that is unique to this particular officer, how he was trained at this time. The court did not think that the permissibility of the traffic stop turned on the testimony that the officer had given. It said i thought it was the opposite that we do want particular risks whether particular risk inquiry that is related to the driver, officer and we want some way of saying there is reasonable suspicion in this case, for example would you say suppose we just had a statistic that said 30 of drivers are likely to do this. Would you say that alone is enough, is it just statistical . Im just trying to find the basis, is it purely statistical or something about a particular drivers experience and training, what is the basis . Youre absolutely right that the suspicion has to be particular in objective. But when the court has talked about particular, it means particular to the suspect, not particular to this officer. Indeed the court has said we dont want the availability of a traffic stop to turn on whether made by a junior officer versus a more experienced officer. But the stop has to be particularized to the information known about this particular suspect. Thats why i think a generalized statistic about how many people in the world commit an offense are not generally sufficient it into the particular person, doesnt that have to do with geography . Meaning i suspect there are some towns in the United States where people dont break the law no matter what. That a license got suspended, the Police Officer knows in this jurisdiction that presumption is not a good one. It does not work. It might work somewhere else without having officer testify as to where he is doing the stop, we dont notice. So you are asking us to have one presumption with no evidence. Other than a stipulation that says the driver of the licens license vehicle or that vehicle belong to someone whos been suspended. Were asking the court to hold as a general matter in common sense and ordinary Human Experience the owner of driver very often the vehicle often the driver with any absence of information to the country. In a circumstance based on geography or other conditions, there is a different standard in a reasonable officer that is a generalized statistic. To point out what justice was saying, are you relying on a generalized statistic and you said no but if i heard you correctly youre basically saying the common sense is based on the general idea that people are driving their own car. My point, a generalized observation of how many people in the world does not provide let me give you hypothetical. They will all this is everybody has to carry drivers license with them at all times. Suppose a particular Police Department did a survey or a study of the practices and found actually 50 of teenagers do not carry the drivers license with them at all times. So now its common sense if you see a teenager, she wont be carrying her drivers license with her. Does that give the Police Officer the ability to stop every teenager that he sees . Generally not. I think the court has said thats what it means for the suspicious to be the picky lies individual. How is that different from this case . You pullover teenage driver because you suspect shes texting in their statistics on that. Its the same hypothetical but distinguished not from this case. The difference is you need something that identifies or particulars suspicion that this driver is committee and crime. Shes a teenager. Unless that was so overwhelmingly reliable that it correlated so strongly at a point become so overwhelming that is so correlated that it would provide why is requirement as a suggested that you have to collaborate, i take that word very generally, if you can, safety because nobodys asking Police Officers to do things unsafely. But dry bite and see if its an older person, make sure its not a woman, do something besides committing one fact to driver conclusion that is no different than a generalized sister sick. It is actually not nearly as safe to do that as one might suppose. As we explained in everything, keep their vehicles position behind the suspect because thats the safest place for them to be. Even in the circumstance we can reasonably attempt the peak maneuver plenty of Police Officers that they want to stop someone move forward from where they are and pulling behind them, theres a whole lot of things that can be done to do that. If the officer does not, if he gains the information that absolutely would be part of the circumstances. But i think this court has explained, where an officer develops reasonable suspicion, a traffic stop is authorized in the permissibility of the stop does not depend on other truths of techniques that the officer may have pursued. You can make the same argument in any suspicion case. Every defendant would say theres always something that the officer couldve easily done to investigate further short of making the traffic stop. The point of reasonable suspicion is to be a minimal standard because of purpose is to conduct further investigation. Thank you counsel. Thank you mr. Chief justice, the United States nationwide world that toys reasonable to assume that a car is being driven by a licensed owner. 27 minutes of our argument theyve offered no way for the court to assess whether that is in fact a reasonable assumption whether in fact basic common sense. They declaim on the context, they disclaim reliance on officers experience, they claim reliance on evidence. They assert is competent in every circumstance in every community in the country. That is not true and is not how the Fourth Amendment works. Heres the only fact that would be suspicion of illegal activity and the identity of the driver. It was burning for the officer to suspect that he was driving, the officer stipulated that he had no idea who is driving. He came in and testified to explain why he would assume an unlicensed driver would be driving his car. Kansas should not be permitted to make by relying on a nationwide world that has no basis in fact or in this case statistical evidence. The fourth moment requires architectural analysis. This court has declined to adopt rules with respect to the suspicion of probable cause. Nothing of this case or this context would support departing from the ordinary contextual type of analysis. In ordinary case and be relatively easy for them to establish suspicion that a car is or is not driven by an unlicensed owner. But the officer has to do at least the minimal amount of work before they can initiate the seizure. Kansas didnt do that work so this court should affirm. Im happy to take any questions. That last bit is what interest me, its a small burden you impose in the state. I does seemed like in many of the cases on which the government relies that an officer comes in and says in my experience owners drive their cars and if that is all that is an issue here, that kansas forgot, neglected to put an officer on the stand to say my experience, the driver, usually the owner of the car, what are we fighting about here and it seems to me that its almost as informal they are asking this court to endorse. [crowd boos] figure for the question. Its certainly not in formalism. The question is not whether an owner drives the car but an owner that doesnt have a valid drivers license. The officer will now come in and say were just asking for words instead of i propose and you propose. Maybe he will, maybe he wont. We dont know what his expenses. What if the officer said i was trained that the driver of the car is usually the owner even when the driver had a suspended license. There was an opportunity here for your client to put in the evidence that he wanted it to subpoena any witnesses that he wanted. Was or not . Kansas decided to stimulat stimulate that was not responsive to my question. If thats all youre asking for, would that be enough . This is how i was trained. You need opportunity for crossexamination. Is there an opportunity for crossexamination here . If the officer had made that factual assertion, then my client would have wanted to crossexamine. They did not do that, they do not rely on officer experience. Its not the defendants job. My question briefly, justice alito, if an officer comes in and says his magic words, whatever they are and some evidence in the case, in my experience in my training, is that good enough to satisfy the constitution in your view . Maybe. That can be said in every reasonable suspicion case. An officer can come in and say the point of the hearing is you want to hear what the officer actually is going to say. I think its certainly common sense that the rate at which suspended drivers continue to die are going to vary from community to community. In this case just to finish your questions in mind too, could the defendant have the opportunity to ask those questions of officer . Yes if the state had chosen to rely on the officers experience then certainly he wouldve asked questions about that. But the state chose not to rely on officers experience. If the state has showing, is not to the defendant to say that or the other things. Thats on the state and not a huge burden that the state has to do. Do you think is totally random in other words, its registered to fred jones but it could be anybody in the world. No. Do think the odds that its fred jones are 5 in which there could be ironically 95 people that you dont know driving the car registered to fred jones but theres a 5 chance that is him. Yes i think thats enough for reasonable suspicion. Im asking if you think that, whether reasonable suspicion or not, do you think at least 5 chance . That the owner of the car is driving the car. On a suspended license or in general . Yes in general. One out of ten, its fred jones car and when the officer goes up he sees a middleaged man and not a teenage girl, is it maybe one out of ten chances . I dont know what it is. You dont think its one out of ten . Is probably one out of ten. We know the probable cost is not 50 , and some were left unturned less than 50 and if youre willing to agree its less than 10 , what regionals under reasonable suspicion to think its one out of five. I cannot say the point is, most of us can say, and the reason is because reasonable suspicion does not have to be based on statistics, it does not have to be based on specialized experience, as we said often, it can be based on common sense. Im sure the number varies. Im sure if youre in the neighborhood that has a lot of kids who will drive their parents car, that is fine and if its an area where its not thats fine. But regional reasonable suspicie you see a demand. A statistical study or spear experience. At there just relying on assertion of common sense they have to give up some way because thats a reasonable common sense interest. Its common sense, they dont have to give you anything more than common sense. How do we know if it is common sense. Its less than 10 . Thats owners who have valid license. Is the opposite of common sense. I think someone having a suspended license i think it cuts the other way, we know they already broken the law, he has a suspended license. It is more likely than not that he would break the law saying you cannot drive with a suspended license. We dont know that because in many states its inability to pay fines that result in a suspended license not criminal activity. This court has never held the evidence that you committed ask crime this is collateral to your basic competition. Your competition is that it doesnt like to reasonable suspicion to think that a car registered in his name is being driven by fred jones. That is different than the collateral point of more or less likely of license suspended. That is not true. Our proposition is that he doesnt have a valid license. It is not reasonable to think that the statistics of the rate hes driving are the same in every community. But someone lives in manhattan or chicago on a suspended license is significantly less likely they will drive on a suspended license because they have access to Public Transportation where they need to go. Compared to seven he lives in rural north dakota or some other place. In your opening you said and be relatively easy for the police to establish whether the driver is the owner. What are you basing that on . Theres a lot of things they can do, an officer could come in and say in my experience nine out of ten when this comes up on the computer it ends up being a suspended owner who is driving the car, an officer could say the information that came up on the computer is this person had previously been caught driving a car. Can i go back, from the exactly the same reaction, i like to finish from the estate further. If i go outside, there is a car driving. We happen to know the license plates and the license plate tells us that Charles Smith owns a car. We see a friend, he says i reasonably suspect that its Charles Jones driving the car. Would you say he is wrong to reasonably suspect that charles is driving the car . No. Now we add another fact. I would like to tell you a fact. On my side this time. The state told you the other fact, im telling you this one, his license was suspended. Now he says, you know that is a good point. But i still reasonably suspect hes driving. Now, would you say that now that person is wrong . Yes you would but you are asking me too say that that person is a question but the question you are asking me too say that that person who still suspects that charles is driving is unreasonable, thats pretty tough for me too say and pretty tough for me too say that that person is wrong unreasonable when he still suspects it. Now, there we are and i cannot get any further in this case, it may be that you have found some president that shows that this initial reaction which i am showing you is totally wrong, i would like to know what it is because all go read it. All of these cases, you have to look at the fatality of circumstances. You cannot just assume illegal activity based on one im not assuming illegal activity. You are. You happened to be, all im assuming is a fact, all i want to know is a fact, is charles driving the car . I would point you to texas which is a good example. The United States versus rick and nonny, its in the brief, the two cases where this court has said you cannot do what you are saying in brown versus texas nobody in the ally walking away from another person in a high crime area and officer stopped him and the court said its not enough that he was present in the high crime area where the probability that he was doing something illegal was higher than if he had been somewhere else. Not enough. Including the officers explaining in his experience you referring to experience in your making a distinction between the rookie cop and the one whos been there a long time. Maybe you know something more about the drivers history, but mr. Glover was charged with being a habitual offender paid one way is to being convicted three times on driving on a suspended license. I asked this question, whether theres an easy way to find out what was the reason for the suspension and the answer to that question was no. That will vary from community to community. Tell me how you think police can safely verify that the suspicion that the owner is the driver is accurate. You can do things short of verifying, you can rely on your friends, if it comes out nine times out of ten its always the suspicion that hes a driver. Or if used previously driving on a suspended license prebut this stuff happens in an area where theres multiple lanes of traffic in every directions, stop at the corner, it would not have been dangerous or difficult for the officer to pull alongside the car and take a glance to see do have statistics to support that . It wouldve been hard for the officer to pull up and look over . I do not. But that is certainly part of what officers do, they examine the circumstances and the surroundings. Ive noticed since taking on this case, how easy to see the face of the driver in front of me by looking in their Rearview Mirror and certainly circumstances where you can do it and its not difficult. If you peers into the window and the glasses tinted and you cannot see. And youre saying if he cant make the stop,. With his experience i mentioned one of the problems was experience but youre making a distinction between the rookie cop who does not have experience in the veteran. That will be every Fourth Amendment contract. It will be harder for them to justify a reasonable suspicion. What about the manual that says stay behind the scar that you suspect. If its not in the record, then you need to rely on one of the other methods of reasonable suspicion paired one thing officers testify how the person this is affected reactive to the officers presence. As suddenly the slow card down or took a sudden turn, that could be a factor, the mosaic circumstances that would be relevant. You want the officer to follow the driver in your brief suggested us until they make a link change or go to a light turn on red or dont come to a. , what sense does that role make . That is one option,. That the option you articulated and im trying to figure out what purpose that would serve, instead of something right away i will follow you until you go 31 in the 30 and that all immediately pull you over. You dont want to say probable cause is Traffic Violation. That is the way that these laws of recency registration are enforced if i understand you, he dont really require that anybody be followed until they do something wrong and you dont require that a Police Officer goes and checks out who is sitting in the front seat, a Police Officer can be neither of those things. As long as the Police Officer shows up to the suppression hearing and says i base this on my experience and suggest to some form of crossexamination [inaudible] how much experience and how many times does he have to stop the car because he thinks how to seek experience if you cant do the first time . If he has other ways to do it or driving with someone its just like the dog, somebody certifies me, somebody trains me, i seen this done by my partner, ive heard about it being done by other people in my department, its just you suggest yourself to the point of suppression hearings. The court should defer to the reasonable community not only if a Law Enforcement officer but also as a child. Probable cause although still less than 50 is significantly more than reasonable suspicion. It may be the case that youd dont need the training and experience and background to make the assumption that you already said at least 10 . The type of analysis you go through, theres no reason that would be different than a probable cause. Lets take and officer pulls up behind a car after having obtained information that the registered owner of the car has a suspended license. What are all the considerations that you think the officer has to take into account before initiating a stop, trying to check with headquarters as a basis for the license suspicion. Whether its an urban or rural area or someplace in between, whether a highway or a city street, whether its raining, dark, and lawabiding community worse is bended licenses never drive. This officer has to take into account all those before initiating a stop customer. Not necessarily just the full context and make a judgment about whether he suspects the owner is driving the car. After having done that and when there is a motion to suppress the judge has to take into account all of those factors, it wasnt really a rural area and it was kind of in between, it was raining but it wasnt raining hard, all those things would depend on an evaluation of all those doctors customer. Just like any fourth mma case, you to look at the full context. Here we did not hear from the local Law Enforcement, we heard from the judge and she said in her experience based on her life in the community of lawrence kansas this was not an assumption. And you should diverted that just as the officer. Is your argument that reasonable suspicion can never be based on a single fact or just one fact, it always has to be more than one fact . If the fact is efficient and you see someone running out of the bank and one wearing a ski mask thats enough to raise suspicion. About a swerving car. Sometimes you. If the cars running another car off the road and they did studies about the observable behavior of people that were driving. On the question Justice Kagan followed up that you were arguing that the officer had no were to fall, page 35 and 36, you say that. The officer can do that, were not trying you said is relatively easy for an officer to do this by tracking the driver until the driver does some minor Traffic Violation and then you can pull the driver over. Which is what is the ordinary way. Delaware in that case did not involve someone with a suspended license. You looking for people. Thats what they were looking for but they did not have information that the owner of the car in question had a suspended license the whole point in the last paragraph distinguishes the situation. Thats absolutely true. The court said that the ordinary way to enforce these laws and thats one option. When im talking in the brief about how its relatively easy for officers to do this, his reasons to depart from the ordinary Fourth Amendment to adopt a rule and no safety. Im just try to figure out what sense that makes. You made a point in a brief that the officer should just follow them around until they do something wrong on the tropical. You think that really is sufficient basis to stop someone in the circumstance if you go another mile down the road and fine because they swerved or just barely exceeded the speed limit. The officer has no other basis for having a reasonable suspicion that the owner is in fact driving that they have a hunch and want to follow up. They can just follow the person year encouraging its not if they see probable cause for another violation. It doesnt matter what the subject of motivation was if they see something that creates probable cause to make a traffic stop, they can do that. You mentioned peering into the windows at some point. In some cases you. The point is theres a whole number theres a whole number of things an officer can do to do more than say im assuming the unlicensed owner is driving the car. I think the word formal was used after this case and in every case is that the Police Officer goes to the hearing, testifies gives him emmanuel and says stay behind the car or in my experience its a register owner whos the driver. Thats okay. That would probably be fine and only because the court has said i dont want to get he doesnt have to say in his experience the registered owner is the driver, he just has to hit one out of ten times. May be. In my experience, ive done ten of these and twice it was the driver. And that might be the right number for reasonable suspicion. To put a number on it, you cannot put a number on it. But that might be enough, it might not be enough. If it is an injustice game bird is correct that an officer has to say in my training or experience one out of ten, one out of 20 has been the driver whose owner of an unregister car. Unlicensed owner. Right, why should we read the declaration is effectively saying that . Is that i assume, im an officer, this is what i do, i assume this is the driver. This is the owner okay. [laughter] touche. Why isnt that a fair reading of the declaration before us. And then it becomes uncommon upon the defendant if the defendant wishes to raise questions just as the defendant with the dogs training and stamping abilities and record with different substances to raise questions about the Officers Training and experience or locality, circumstances which is very lawabiding community. Im sure. Or whatever. Why shouldnt we read this as effectively, exactly what do you say would be successor. I think the simple answer, that is not what it says, is that he assumed. I understand its a different formulation of worth but why isnt functionally or practically, why isnt it real really. It does not say i assume it unlicensed owner is the driver is because i assume the owner is a driver. Its all magic words. Like i said is not going to be hard in most cases i read the lower part, kansas Supreme Courts words literally is says when a court rolls in favor of the state based on the lack of evidence in the record relieves the state. I very carefully says here the problem is not that the state necessarily needs significantly more evident, it needs some more evidence. I think that has to be true. In the Supreme Court said im not going to try to lift all the different ways because theres so many but you have to see something. And thats all were looking for, thats what this court has said time and time again that you have to look at those circumstances and cannot rely on a single fact that has a probabilitybased correlation to a crime, you have to come in and explain the basis for your suspicion, my friend talked about terry, he did not adopt a rule that anytime 70 walks past the store window you automatically have reasonable suspicion. They relied on the officers experience, his observation and other things going on, thats all we say is you should rely on other things that were observed and what the officer knew in the database is extremely unreliable. That something he should know in his experience,. We just need something more. You think they needed statistics about percentage of people who walk by window three times who had criminal intent . No, but there was not a probabilitybased suspicion but also we dont think the state needs specifics, kansas relied on sisters statistics. They are not relevant to this case. Our point in a recent discussion, we have to rely on the good statistics. You said something that caught my attention, i thought the officer was probably saying the right thing in my experience, people who own cars are likely to be the driver. And of the matter until you point out, not them, you point out that here the driver had lost his license, now it becomes more difficult because you keep saying not a bright line rule, you want to add other things, what other things. And if there were other things relevant to this, why not call the officer . And asked him and if you want to say thats unreasonable, my fax, he probably didnt say that because actually the statistics show 75 , 60 , what is it that you think is the extra thing in the fact that shouldve been in. Theres ten things he couldve done in he did not do. I do not say that, i said what is it, im not talking about what he might have done, im saying what fact is there other than the two that he pointed to in the one that you added that you think was relevant . The behavior of the driver could have been relevant, its an relevant im not asking couldve been. So you should decide all the facts but i cant point you to a fact that was not relevant and not decided . You say [inaudible] may be in his experience times out of ten or 99 out of a hundred he pulled someone over in the circumstance is not the unlicensed owner. We just do not know. The rule that kansas wants, anytime someone borrows a car that is registered to an unlicensed owner there is nothing she can do to avoid being seen. That has to be evidence that the rule what you are proposing a trivial decision or revolutionary decision. As a trivial decision if all thats lacking is a statement that i been trained that global law. Its a revolutionary decision if in every case involving reasonable suspicion there has to be a statistical showing or an examination of all the things you think are necessary. His that not right . What were asking is the ordinary Fourth Amendment analysis required in every case, it does not require a statistic or a magic word it just requires something to support the assumption. Page 4 of the reply whose burden is it . Isnt it yours . You have to prove the facts. We have proved the stipulated facts. If you prove the fact that they dont have to if you dont prove enough. You could come in and say he wore a red hat thats why i stopped him and they would come back and say thats not enough to make reasonable suspicion. So what they are saying is making an assumption without telling us the basis of the assumption is not enough. The point is, they stipulated the facts that were relevant to the determination and the Supreme Court made a determination as to those facts. My point is, that didnt arise until the red brief of the court. We dont think its fair to criticize once they agree. If they wanted to indicate as to what specific they have an opportunity call the officer and crossexamine. With regard to waiting for violation of the Justice Kavanaugh talked about with it is a perfectly reasonable situation. We are going to really eliminate reasonable suspicion. If theres a Traffic Violation thats probable cause. And its not a basis. This courts decision has indicated that you dont have to wait for probable cause in order to initiate a stop. I think your question was right on. Third, statistically we agree with the athat indicate statistics are rarely present and frequently distinguished by the party. We dont believe the statistics for relevant. To go back to the stipulation ab the party drew the stipulation agreed to them and presented them to the court. It was a joint stipulation. The parties stipulated, yes your honor. The fourth point i would like to make is that the Fourth Amendment does not and should not apply differently based upon the age and experience of the officer or the time of day for the moment. The rule respondent proposal would require the officers to let this beautiful go at night because its impossible to identify. This court case except for no software does not do that. Certainly the reason most proficient cases do not do that. Fifth, the states have a strong interest in regulating the roadways of the traffic situation and they have a strong Law Enforcement interest. For example, if theres a report of a child abshe can finish her thoughts. A child that had been abducted and looking for the in debate in adding the famous mr. Gorbachev tear down that wall line to the speech. This is just over two