We use both our own and third-party cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. If you continue to browse, we consider that you accept the use of these.
  • Celebrating 20 Years of Training Excellence 2004-2024

Reasonable Suspicion and Common Sense Prevail: Kansas v. Glover

Well, we may be sheltering in place trying to avoid COVID19, but the wheels of justice are still spinning.  The United States Supreme Court decided Kansas v. Glover on April 6, 2020, holding that a police officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment when initiating an investigative traffic stop for driving on a revoked license after running the vehicle’s license plate and learning the registered owner has a revoked driver’s license.  To make an investigative traffic stop, an officer must have reasonable suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity.  Reasonable suspicion cannot be a hunch, but rather based on articulable facts.  Here, Kansas Deputy Mehrer observed an individual operating a Chevy truck.  Deputy Mehrer ran the plate and it revealed that Charles Glover, Jr. was the registered owner and that his license to drive was revoked.  Based on his common sense and experience, Deputy Mehrer assumed the registered owner of the truck was also the driver and he initiated a traffic stop to investigate the crime of driving with a revoked license.  The deputy did not try to identify the driver prior to making the stop.

The US Supreme Court reiterated its prior rulings that reasonable suspicion “depends on the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.”  The Court emphasized that officers must be permitted to make “commonsense judgements and inferences about human behavior.”  First, the Court found that although the registered owner is not always the driver of the car, this fact does not negate the commonsense inference that Glover was likely the driver.  Next, the defense argued that because Glover’s license was revoked, it was unreasonable for the deputy to assume that he would be driving the car as that would be illegal.  Again, the Supreme Court explains that both commonsense and empirical evidence demonstrate that drivers often continue to drive while their license is suspended or revoked.  Therefore, Deputy Mehrer’s inference that Glover was the driver was also reasonable.

The US Supreme Court did emphasize the narrow scope of this holding in that reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances, so additional facts might dispel reasonable suspicion.  For example, if the deputy had a view of the driver before pulling the truck over and saw that it was a female driver, then the inference that Charles Glover, Jr. was the driver because he is the registered owner is negated.  Deputy Mehrer possessed no exculpatory information in this case.  Thus, the combined database information and commonsense judgments of the deputy that the registered owner is the driver and therefore is engaged in criminal activity constituted reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop under the 4th Amendment.


What does this mean for you?  As always, continue to act reasonably and articulate the facts giving rise to your suspicion in your report to avoid having to testify to them in a suppression hearing.  Also, don’t disregard bad facts, and you should be fine.


  • Your training gave me the confidence and tools to interview the suspect for over 5 hours and to bring a closure to the case.

    —Daniel Phelan, San Jose Police Department
  • I highly recommend this training for any Probation staff who have the necessity to interview/interrogate individuals for investigation purposes.

    —R. Bret Fidler, Santa Clara County Probation Department
  • Your training has made the greatest and most direct impact on my assignment of any training class that I've taken.

    —Ken Gelskey, National City Police Department
  • This training provided the useful tools necessary for assessing the veracity of a suspected child abuser, which goes a long way in helping to protect children.

    —Sunny Burgan, MSSW, LCSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County DFCS
  • This was, by far, one of the most useful training classes I've attended since becoming an investigator.

    —Steven Aiello, Antioch Police Department
  • The information presented was highly relevant to my job and was presented in a manner that was organized and very easy to digest.

    —Michael McGarvey, California State Prison, San Quentin
  • Instructional style is engaging and highly effective.

    —George Laing, Fire Prevention Captain, Investigator
  • Incredible training with amazing real world instruction. I have been taking law enforcement classes for over 30 years and by far this is the best presented and most useful.

    —Det. Brian Dale, Portland Police Bureau
  • I will continue to use and pass on this information because I really believe in the instructors and their approach.

    —Kimberly Meyer, Washoe County Sheriff's Department
  • This was, by far and away the best training I have received in 15 plus years of Law Enforcement. The instructors are experienced, engaging, articulate, and very entertaining. I will be recommending this training to multiple agencies.

    —Mark Paynter, Oregon DOC
  • Effective teaching teams! The presentation of the material was consistently interesting, and intelligent without being too intellectualized.

    —Michele Keller, Deputy Probation Officer, County of Alameda
  • This training by far has been the most informative and most effective I've attended. The instructors engaged the students in a manner that made me want to speak my opinion, ask questions, and participate.

    —Julio Ibarra, Merced County Sheriff’s Office
  • It not often that you go to a training that you really, really want to pay attention to. Because of the high quality information and style of presentation, I knew that if I looked away I was going to miss out.

    —Quinten Graves, Oregon State Police