The Role of Individualization in Kansas v. Glover

[Disir]

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Kansas v. Glover, a case about when police have reasonable suspicion to stop vehicles that are owned (but not necessarily being driven) by people with suspended licenses. I want to draw attention to an underappreciated strand of argument in this case—namely, the role of “individualized” or “particularized” evidence. In short, the justices and their commentators have focused on whether police had a reliable or testable basis for their suspicion; but a lack of individualized evidence may actually be the more serious and intractable problem.


Most of the discussion around Glover has had to do with whether the police suspicion had a sufficiently reliable and testable basis in fact. For example, the justices quizzed the parties—especially Sarah Harrington, Glover’s superb counsel—as to whether rigorously collected statistics or an officer’s personal experiences would be a sufficient basis for suspicion, if that evidence had been entered into the record. And the justices also discussed whether requiring those types of evidence would have any practical effect. Perhaps so, on the theory that officers could be cross-examined on their past stops, or a defendant might try to marshal various forms of public data to counter the police’s asserted figures.
The Role of Individualization in Kansas v. Glover

That's an interesting read but a smidge lengthy for you ADHD folks.

The facts of the case: {{meta.pageTitle}}

 

[SavannahMann]

I would argue no. The fact that a car is owned by a person with a suspended license is not probable cause to show the car is PROBABLY being driven by the owner. Statistical nonsense is how we allowed egregious violations of civil rights in the past. It was the foundation of Stop and Frisk, a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment, and the other violations of those civil rights we have seen so much of in recent years.

It is interesting so far, that instead of the instincts of the cops coming in, as though they have some sort of psychic ability to tell when someone is guilty issued to them along with the badge, it is statistical probability. By that standard, our civil rights would be so eroded as to be meaningless.

Imagine where those statistics could lead you in the near future? It would be the Wet Dream of Racists everywhere. Proportionally Black people commit more crimes, therefor it is statistically probable that the black person you are looking at is a criminal. It is a bullshit argument since even in the racists wildest dreams, only a small fraction of black people commit crimes. But it would allow an entire subset of American Citizens to be stripped of the protections of their civil rights.

But let’s just pretend this decision in the affirmative would not be used as the foundation of even more egregious violations of our Civil Rights. Let’s just leave it at car ownership versus license status.

I own a car. There are five people in my family, three of which live with me. Wife and kids. One of the kids is a licensed driver. So the car that is owned by me, could easily be driven by my family members. Does the status of my license mean that they are automatically presumed guilty until proven innocent every time they pull out of my driveway? Could the police stop my car every single time it leaves my house to insure I am not driving it?

Does the family of an individual with that suspended license surrender their Fourth Amendment rights automatically as well? Do I need to “sell” the car to another family member?

Let’s say I hire someone to drive my car. I recognize that for the few months of the suspension, I have no legal right to drive. I hire a guy to be my driver. Every time we leave the house, does that mean that the police can stop the car to insure I am not driving? Thus harassing my employees and myself because I MIGHT be driving?

The standards that the police want set are absolute bullshit. Worse, it abuses statistical evidence as actual. It is the exact flawed and rejected argument that the racists make all the time. More blacks per capita are criminals, therefore all blacks are criminals.

Another question. What if I sell the car? I sell the car to afford Uber for the next few months, and will buy some used beater when the suspension is up. The new owner of the car has what, thirty days to get the plates changed over? Does that mean that for thirty days that new owner is legally allowed to be harassed for buying a car?

This case literally turns the foundation of our law on its head. Instead of Blackwell’s argument that it is better for one thousand guilty people to go free than it is to allow one innocent man to go to prison. It is that it is better for a thousand people to be stripped of their civil rights, to insure one person does not break the law.

 

[Kilroy2]

It is a issue of probable cause and what does it mean or where is that line in the sand

if the driver was that person who should not have been driving them the police would have been correct in stopping them

But since it was not the driver then we can second guess this to death

probable cause has always been a valid argument for stopping people for one reason and then finding something else that was illegal.

the Odessa Texas shooter was pulled over but open fire on the trooper

Could that have been a greater disaster if the guy open fire in a public place

So obviously we can second guess things and hold individual right as being paramount but in practicality people get tired of that unless your the individual right that is being question and then you have an ax to grind.

Public opinion you got to love it or hate it but that's why we have judges who will have to make a decision where that line is

That is why I would like the supreme court to have 4 liberals and 4 conservatives by law and the chief justice has to be one that can swing both ways