In United States v. Arvizu (534 U.S. 266 [2001]), the Court held that a reasonable suspicion determination in automobile stop cases is based on the totality of the circumstances rather than each act viewed separately. What do you think is the reasoning for the totality of the circumstances requirement?
What will be an ideal response?
The reasoning for the totality of the circumstances requirement is to allow officers to
rely on a number of factors that individually may not constitute reasonable suspicion
and to allow officers to draw on their own experiences and specialized training to
make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available.
You might also like to view...
If the burden of production for a particular issue is not met at trial, what is the consequence?
a. the issue goes to the jury b. the issue does not go the jury c. the judge decides the issue d. the defendant must plead guilty
During the political era in American policing, local politicians rewarded their friends with jobs on the police force. This practice was known as ________.
A. political payback B. nepotism C. job security D. patronage
Which of these counts as a public order crime?
a. murder b. prostitution c. larceny d. battery
In the 1940s, which of the following theorists formulated the basic assumptions of labeling theory?
A. Frank Tannenbaum B. Howard Becker C. Edwin Lemert D. George Herbert Mead