In United States v. Arvizu (534 U.S. 266 2001), the Court held ...

[saraeharris]

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?

Question 2

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that although a vehicle stop is a form of seizure, the motorist is not fully protected by the Fourth Amendment. Explain the reasons given by the Supreme Court in this decision. Do you agree? Why or why not?
 
  What will be an ideal response?

[ktidd]

Answer to Question 1

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.

Answer to Question 2

A vehicle stop is less intrusive, so neither a warrant nor probable cause is required.
However, some justification (usually reasonable suspicion or something similar) is
required. I agree with this rule. Our expectation of privacy is considerably less than
our expectation of privacy in our homes. Also, the state has an interest in regulating
the operation of motor vehicles on public roads and highways, thus requiring greater
authority in the state and its agents when dealing with vehicles.