The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with Blue to gold law enforcement training.

I want to do a really quick video about a US Supreme Court case that's coming up. It's State of Kansas versus Charles Glover. And the Supreme Court is going to hear this case very soon. And the question is whether or not a police officer has reasonable suspicion to stop a car based purely off of the license check. The registration check shows that the registered owner has a revoked license. And I'm going to predict the future here for you. Okay. The Supreme Court is going to say, yes, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the Kansas Supreme Court said the officer had a hunch. But really, is it a hunch when you know that the registered owner has a revoked license? And especially when there's only one, one register owner not to mix a little bit tougher case. But there's one register owner? And you know, from your training experience, that most people drive their own cars? Is it possible that you can lend your car to somebody else and then the officer could have stopped your friend, or your your your brother or sister? Absolutely. But that's not a reasonable suspicion requires reasonable suspicion requires the officer to articulate facts or circumstances that will lead a reasonable person to believe that criminal activity is afoot. Right. The afoot is from Terry versus Ohio. But it's a fancy way of saying that you can put your finger on something you can say, look, Judge, this is why I stopped this particular car. It wasn't a hunch; I believe that it's a good chance, a fair chance, least reasonable suspicion standard, that the driver is the registered owner and therefore has that revoked license. A hunch would be, Hey, I heard that a person driving a white escalate has a revoked license. Oh, look, there's a white escalate. Let me go stop that car. That's a hunch you can't stop that car because you have nothing to put your finger on that. This is a person driving on a suspended license or revoked license. So the officer in Kansas, I think, did a great job. It's an IT is an important cause. To me. It's an easy case. I don't know why it's taken the supreme US Supreme Court to get involved. I will say before I leave off some teaching points here is that this maybe could have been avoided if the officer put in some more facts and circumstances, for example, that the if the if the revoke licenses for a male, that he believed he you know that a male was driving, they didn't appear to be a female, maybe the same age, if there are dark tinted windows, put that in there, hey, look, I couldn't even see the driver, because the tint that tinted windows was so dark. Right. You know, that would have helped the officer from my understanding purely stopped the vehicle and the reports a look, registered owner has a revoked license. Therefore I can automatically stop the car. It's it's probably true. You know, I think again, a Supreme Court is going to, I believe find in favor the officer, but it's always good to put those extra things in there. Things that does, you know, clearly officer probably had more information, he probably saw a driver that was a male or you know, for example. So I hope that helps. I just want to throw that out there. If you want me to answer more of your search and seizure questions, contact me through the blue to gold comm webpage. Also, if you're interested in having me come out to your agency and teach you and your fellow brothers and sisters advanced search and seizure law, do the same thing and contact me be safe until next time.

Have another question? Click here: https://www.bluetogold.com/show