140 S. Ct. 1183 (2020)
Kansas charged Charles Glover, Jr., with driving as a habitual violator following a traffic stop on April 28, 2016.1
On that date, Deputy Mark Mehrer, a certified law enforcement officer with the Douglas County Kansas Sheriff's Office, was on routine patrol in Douglas County when he observed a 1995 Chevrolet 1500 pickup truck bearing Kansas plate 295ATJ.2
Deputy Mehrer ran the license plate through the Kansas Department of Revenue's file service.3 The registration matched the observed truck and listed Charles Glover Jr. as the owner, with the additional information that Glover's driver's license had been revoked in Kansas.4
Based solely on this data, Deputy Mehrer initiated the stop.5 He did so without observing any traffic violations or attempting to identify the driver, under the assumption that the registered owner was operating the vehicle.6 The stop confirmed that the driver was Charles Glover Jr.7
At the subsequent suppression hearing on Glover's motion claiming the officer lacked reasonable suspicion, the parties stipulated to these facts rather than presenting testimony from either Glover or the deputy.8 The District Court granted the suppression motion.9
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision.10 The Kansas Supreme Court then reversed the Court of Appeals.11 The United States Supreme Court granted Kansas's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the case.12
Whether a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment by initiating an investigative traffic stop after running a vehicle's license plate and learning that the registered owner has a revoked driver's license?13
The Fourth Amendment permits an officer to initiate a brief investigative traffic stop when he has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity.14 Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause and can be established with information different in quantity or content, relying on commonsense judgments and inferences about human behavior rather than scientific certainty.
No. Deputy Mehrer observed a 1995 Chevrolet 1500 pickup truck with Kansas plate 295ATJ on April 28, 2016, while on routine patrol.15 He ran the plate through the Kansas Department of Revenue's file service and learned the truck was registered to Charles Glover Jr. with a revoked driver's license. Based solely on these facts and without observing any traffic infractions or attempting to identify the driver, Deputy Mehrer inferred that the registered owner was operating the vehicle and initiated the stop.16 This inference is reasonable because registered owners are frequently the drivers of their vehicles, drivers with revoked licenses often continue to drive and pose safety risks, and Kansas revocation statutes cover individuals who have demonstrated disregard for traffic laws.17
Deputy Mehrer possessed no information negating the inference that Glover was the driver.18
The officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the stop was justified by reasonable suspicion under the totality of the circumstances.19
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Sotomayor dissented on the ground that the majority improperly flips the burden of proof by permitting stops whenever officers lack information negating an inference that the owner is driving.20 She argued that the State must affirmatively supply the key inference through an officer's training, experience, or specific facts rather than relying on judicial common sense or probabilities alone. The dissent maintained that reasonable suspicion requires individualized suspicion drawn from an officer's perspective and expertise, not demographic profiles or assumptions about revoked drivers, and that the majority's approach erodes the particularized showing demanded by precedent.21