1 00:00:03,520 --> 00:00:07,040 Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every 2 00:00:07,120 --> 00:00:09,680 Speaker 1: day we bring you insight an analysis into the most 3 00:00:09,720 --> 00:00:12,200 Speaker 1: important legal news of the day. You can find more 4 00:00:12,240 --> 00:00:16,160 Speaker 1: episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple podcast, SoundCloud 5 00:00:16,280 --> 00:00:19,880 Speaker 1: and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. A case about 6 00:00:19,880 --> 00:00:23,560 Speaker 1: a traffic stop led to some interesting arguments and several 7 00:00:23,600 --> 00:00:27,920 Speaker 1: skeptical Supreme Court justices. A Kansas man claims that police 8 00:00:28,080 --> 00:00:31,360 Speaker 1: violated the Fourth Amendment when an officer pulled him over 9 00:00:31,440 --> 00:00:34,480 Speaker 1: after running the license plate on his truck and discovering 10 00:00:34,479 --> 00:00:38,120 Speaker 1: its registered owner had his driver's license revoked without doing 11 00:00:38,159 --> 00:00:42,000 Speaker 1: anything more. Joining me is Jordan Reuben, Bloomberg Law Legal Editor. 12 00:00:42,560 --> 00:00:46,800 Speaker 1: Why did the court take this case? As with pretty 13 00:00:46,880 --> 00:00:48,960 Speaker 1: much any case that the court takes, they take it 14 00:00:49,000 --> 00:00:52,519 Speaker 1: to resolve an issue that's unresolved around the country. And 15 00:00:52,560 --> 00:00:56,160 Speaker 1: so here the question is whether it's reasonable for police 16 00:00:56,240 --> 00:00:59,200 Speaker 1: to pull over a car just based on the fact 17 00:00:59,280 --> 00:01:02,000 Speaker 1: that the cars interstered owner has their license revoked without 18 00:01:02,040 --> 00:01:07,480 Speaker 1: any more information. And so whether it's because some justices 19 00:01:07,480 --> 00:01:10,200 Speaker 1: wanted to take the case to say that it is reasonable, 20 00:01:10,319 --> 00:01:12,440 Speaker 1: or it isn't. At any rate, it's an issue that 21 00:01:12,680 --> 00:01:14,960 Speaker 1: it seems that the court at least felt it was 22 00:01:15,360 --> 00:01:18,480 Speaker 1: reasonable to want to clear up in this case, the 23 00:01:18,560 --> 00:01:24,040 Speaker 1: registered owner's license was revoked and the officer stopped him 24 00:01:24,200 --> 00:01:28,240 Speaker 1: driving his truck. What was the claim by the defense? 25 00:01:29,440 --> 00:01:33,480 Speaker 1: So even though it was actually the registered owner of 26 00:01:33,560 --> 00:01:36,720 Speaker 1: the car, Charles Glover, who was in fact driving the car, 27 00:01:37,120 --> 00:01:40,440 Speaker 1: Glover raised the argument and a suppression motion that there 28 00:01:40,600 --> 00:01:43,360 Speaker 1: wasn't a good enough reason for the officer to think 29 00:01:43,440 --> 00:01:45,760 Speaker 1: that it was Glover before he pulled him over. That's 30 00:01:45,800 --> 00:01:49,040 Speaker 1: because all the officer did before pulling Glover's truck over 31 00:01:49,440 --> 00:01:51,840 Speaker 1: was just run the license plate, at which point it 32 00:01:51,960 --> 00:01:55,240 Speaker 1: showed that the registered owner, Glover, had his license revoked. 33 00:01:55,360 --> 00:01:57,600 Speaker 1: But the officer didn't do anything more than that. He 34 00:01:57,640 --> 00:02:01,280 Speaker 1: didn't try to confirm that it was Lover's identity first, 35 00:02:01,400 --> 00:02:04,240 Speaker 1: or observe the traffic violation or anything like that. It 36 00:02:04,360 --> 00:02:08,040 Speaker 1: was just the simple fact of Glover having his license revoked. 37 00:02:08,080 --> 00:02:11,519 Speaker 1: And Glover argues that that's simply not enough to amount 38 00:02:11,560 --> 00:02:15,680 Speaker 1: to reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment. So what should 39 00:02:15,680 --> 00:02:18,680 Speaker 1: the officer have done. He's not supposed to stop the 40 00:02:18,720 --> 00:02:22,639 Speaker 1: truck unless what what else was he supposed to do? Right? 41 00:02:22,720 --> 00:02:25,080 Speaker 1: So that's the million dollar question that came up at 42 00:02:25,080 --> 00:02:28,920 Speaker 1: the argument that Glover's lawyer didn't necessarily have a specific 43 00:02:29,000 --> 00:02:32,399 Speaker 1: answer to other than to say there needs to be 44 00:02:32,520 --> 00:02:36,040 Speaker 1: something done. Obviously, one thing that was brought up was 45 00:02:36,440 --> 00:02:39,000 Speaker 1: trying to visually check to see if it appears to 46 00:02:39,000 --> 00:02:43,120 Speaker 1: be the same person, Say, if the registered owner appears 47 00:02:43,160 --> 00:02:45,120 Speaker 1: to be a sixth year old man, if it looks 48 00:02:45,160 --> 00:02:47,880 Speaker 1: like the driver is someone like that, then that would 49 00:02:47,919 --> 00:02:51,000 Speaker 1: be an example of one other fact that, according to 50 00:02:51,040 --> 00:02:55,000 Speaker 1: the dissenses argument, would amount probably too reasonable suspicion. The 51 00:02:55,040 --> 00:02:56,960 Speaker 1: bottom line was, they said, it at least has to 52 00:02:57,000 --> 00:02:59,920 Speaker 1: be something more than just the fact of the register 53 00:03:00,080 --> 00:03:03,440 Speaker 1: owner having their license revoked. Do we know what the 54 00:03:03,480 --> 00:03:07,480 Speaker 1: officer did do? So it's a very good question, and 55 00:03:07,520 --> 00:03:10,680 Speaker 1: it raises sort of a weird aspect of this case, 56 00:03:11,000 --> 00:03:13,799 Speaker 1: which is that at the stage of the suppression motion, 57 00:03:14,200 --> 00:03:17,200 Speaker 1: the officer didn't testify to hearing. All we had were 58 00:03:17,240 --> 00:03:20,960 Speaker 1: stipulated facts, meaning both parties, the prosecution and the defense, 59 00:03:21,360 --> 00:03:24,120 Speaker 1: they agreed to a certain set of facts without testing 60 00:03:24,120 --> 00:03:27,600 Speaker 1: them in the crucible of cross examination, and essentially what 61 00:03:27,680 --> 00:03:30,000 Speaker 1: it boiled down to was simply the fact of the 62 00:03:30,000 --> 00:03:33,200 Speaker 1: officer saying the car was driving, I ran the plate, 63 00:03:33,440 --> 00:03:37,160 Speaker 1: it came back as a registered owner having license revoked, 64 00:03:37,280 --> 00:03:39,840 Speaker 1: and that's it. So is it possible that the officer 65 00:03:39,920 --> 00:03:43,600 Speaker 1: did something else. Maybe, but really we're bound by this 66 00:03:43,760 --> 00:03:46,760 Speaker 1: stipulation and the Supreme Court is bound by it too, 67 00:03:46,760 --> 00:03:50,240 Speaker 1: And there was actually some frustration with that at the argument, 68 00:03:50,280 --> 00:03:53,040 Speaker 1: and some of the justices saying, you know, it's sort 69 00:03:53,080 --> 00:03:55,360 Speaker 1: of difficult for us to rule on this without having 70 00:03:55,480 --> 00:03:58,640 Speaker 1: enough information. Now we're still waiting to see which way 71 00:03:58,680 --> 00:04:00,880 Speaker 1: that's going to cut. Obviously, one way to look at 72 00:04:00,920 --> 00:04:04,360 Speaker 1: that is that it could cut potentially in favor of 73 00:04:04,400 --> 00:04:07,720 Speaker 1: the defense, in the sense that they could send it 74 00:04:07,760 --> 00:04:10,000 Speaker 1: back to the court to say, this is a situation 75 00:04:10,040 --> 00:04:12,360 Speaker 1: where we just need more you know, we want officers 76 00:04:12,360 --> 00:04:15,200 Speaker 1: to testify it hearings, to at least say, consistent with 77 00:04:15,240 --> 00:04:18,719 Speaker 1: my experience or something like that, this is the type 78 00:04:18,720 --> 00:04:21,960 Speaker 1: of thing where the registered owner usually is the driver, 79 00:04:22,440 --> 00:04:25,000 Speaker 1: for example. On the other hand, some of the other 80 00:04:25,080 --> 00:04:29,359 Speaker 1: justices and perhaps a majority of the court seemed perhaps 81 00:04:29,360 --> 00:04:32,760 Speaker 1: more likely to say, just based on common sense, it 82 00:04:32,880 --> 00:04:35,359 Speaker 1: was a reasonable thing for the officer to do. The 83 00:04:35,360 --> 00:04:37,960 Speaker 1: two words common sense came up a lot during the argument. 84 00:04:38,000 --> 00:04:40,360 Speaker 1: But different members of the court and the different parties 85 00:04:40,400 --> 00:04:43,320 Speaker 1: have different views of what exactly is common sense in 86 00:04:43,320 --> 00:04:49,680 Speaker 1: this situation. Chief Justice John Roberts seemed particularly exasperated. You said, 87 00:04:49,720 --> 00:04:52,440 Speaker 1: do you think it's totally random who the driver is? 88 00:04:52,520 --> 00:04:55,080 Speaker 1: In other words, it's registered to Fred Jones, but it 89 00:04:55,120 --> 00:04:58,559 Speaker 1: could be anybody in the world. Yeah. So Chief Justice 90 00:04:58,640 --> 00:05:01,960 Speaker 1: Roberts usually keeps a pretty even keel. He got sort 91 00:05:01,960 --> 00:05:05,320 Speaker 1: of almost agitated during the argument and back and forth 92 00:05:05,360 --> 00:05:09,600 Speaker 1: with Glover's attorney Sarah Harrington. Roberts seemed to really buy 93 00:05:09,640 --> 00:05:12,360 Speaker 1: into the state's common sense argument, and so he was 94 00:05:12,400 --> 00:05:15,560 Speaker 1: getting frustrated in terms of trying to search for an 95 00:05:15,560 --> 00:05:19,160 Speaker 1: answer of what more exactly was the officers supposed to do, 96 00:05:19,560 --> 00:05:22,520 Speaker 1: including the question of what sort of probability can we 97 00:05:22,560 --> 00:05:26,360 Speaker 1: attach to whether the registered owner is in fact the driver? 98 00:05:26,920 --> 00:05:31,960 Speaker 1: And Roberts, as well as Justice Alito and some other justices, 99 00:05:32,040 --> 00:05:35,479 Speaker 1: they were sort of frustrated at the defense essentially not 100 00:05:35,720 --> 00:05:38,440 Speaker 1: buying into the state's common sense argument. From their view, 101 00:05:38,839 --> 00:05:41,560 Speaker 1: so now let's talk about the standard. The standard is 102 00:05:41,640 --> 00:05:47,039 Speaker 1: reasonable suspicion, and that's a pretty low standard, it is, 103 00:05:47,120 --> 00:05:48,960 Speaker 1: And so that came up during the argument as well. 104 00:05:48,960 --> 00:05:52,120 Speaker 1: Of course, it's a point that the state pressed more 105 00:05:52,400 --> 00:05:55,080 Speaker 1: vigorously than the defense did. Obviously, the defense doesn't want 106 00:05:55,080 --> 00:05:57,880 Speaker 1: to highlight that it's a low standard. But the defense said, 107 00:05:57,960 --> 00:06:00,680 Speaker 1: even under this low standard, this is and enough in 108 00:06:00,720 --> 00:06:03,400 Speaker 1: their view. And so obviously it's a point that the 109 00:06:03,440 --> 00:06:06,760 Speaker 1: state wants to emphasize and saying the fact that reasonable 110 00:06:06,760 --> 00:06:09,480 Speaker 1: suspicion is such a low standard, combined with this sort 111 00:06:09,520 --> 00:06:13,080 Speaker 1: of common sense argument that it's at least reasonable for 112 00:06:13,120 --> 00:06:16,800 Speaker 1: an officer to pull over a car that is being 113 00:06:16,880 --> 00:06:20,280 Speaker 1: driven where the registered owner's license is revoked, at least 114 00:06:20,279 --> 00:06:24,120 Speaker 1: to investigate more. In the words of Canvas lawyer's argument, 115 00:06:24,279 --> 00:06:26,360 Speaker 1: it would have been bad police work for the cop 116 00:06:26,440 --> 00:06:29,080 Speaker 1: not to pull the car over again, sort of going 117 00:06:29,120 --> 00:06:34,000 Speaker 1: towards this common sense type of argument. So Jordan's Justice 118 00:06:34,040 --> 00:06:38,679 Speaker 1: Samuel Alito said about the decision they're going to issue 119 00:06:39,400 --> 00:06:42,960 Speaker 1: that they could either issue a trivial decision or a 120 00:06:43,000 --> 00:06:48,000 Speaker 1: revolutionary decision. Explain what he meant by that, sure, and 121 00:06:48,040 --> 00:06:51,560 Speaker 1: this is Justice Alito, who is probably the least likely 122 00:06:51,600 --> 00:06:54,400 Speaker 1: on the court to side with the criminal defense in 123 00:06:54,480 --> 00:06:57,120 Speaker 1: a criminal case. And what he was saying was this, 124 00:06:57,480 --> 00:07:00,640 Speaker 1: He said, it could be a trivial decision in the 125 00:07:00,720 --> 00:07:03,800 Speaker 1: sense that they could hold okay, all an officer had 126 00:07:03,880 --> 00:07:07,880 Speaker 1: to do was additionally testify based on my training and experience, 127 00:07:07,960 --> 00:07:11,040 Speaker 1: and Injustice Lados where its blah blah blah, essentially showing 128 00:07:11,080 --> 00:07:12,960 Speaker 1: that he doesn't really think it's that's a good a deal. 129 00:07:13,320 --> 00:07:15,440 Speaker 1: On the other hand, it could be a revolutionary decision 130 00:07:15,720 --> 00:07:18,680 Speaker 1: if they wind up having to say that certain probabilities 131 00:07:18,720 --> 00:07:21,960 Speaker 1: and statistics are involved, or something as sort of mundane 132 00:07:21,960 --> 00:07:25,280 Speaker 1: in Justice Leado's view anyway, as this sort of routine 133 00:07:25,320 --> 00:07:28,320 Speaker 1: traffic stops. So when he called it a revolutionary from 134 00:07:28,400 --> 00:07:31,120 Speaker 1: his view, that did not seem to be a laudatory 135 00:07:31,200 --> 00:07:34,360 Speaker 1: way to put the defense's arguments. It's times like this 136 00:07:34,480 --> 00:07:37,640 Speaker 1: that I wish we had the audio of the of 137 00:07:37,680 --> 00:07:41,480 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court arguments earlier than when they do. Let 138 00:07:41,560 --> 00:07:44,320 Speaker 1: us hear it for sure, and that uh, and that'll 139 00:07:44,360 --> 00:07:46,200 Speaker 1: be posted Friday at the end of every week. And 140 00:07:46,200 --> 00:07:47,920 Speaker 1: there's also a good part of the audio I would 141 00:07:47,920 --> 00:07:51,520 Speaker 1: say to check out for Justice Gorsage is impression or 142 00:07:51,560 --> 00:07:53,920 Speaker 1: so it seems, of a New York City police officers. 143 00:07:54,000 --> 00:07:55,720 Speaker 1: That was another fun moment of it here he got 144 00:07:55,760 --> 00:07:59,440 Speaker 1: called on that he did and then uh Glover's lawyer, 145 00:08:00,000 --> 00:08:03,080 Speaker 1: Sarah Harrington told them this case was actually taking place 146 00:08:03,080 --> 00:08:07,880 Speaker 1: in Kansas, not New York, and gorgeous, said touche, playhearted 147 00:08:07,880 --> 00:08:12,720 Speaker 1: moment in the argument, finally, is it public safety on 148 00:08:12,720 --> 00:08:16,840 Speaker 1: one side versus privacy on the other, Well, what Glover 149 00:08:16,880 --> 00:08:19,480 Speaker 1: would probably say is that public safety doesn't have to 150 00:08:19,520 --> 00:08:22,280 Speaker 1: be sacrificed in order to buy by the Fourth Amendment. 151 00:08:22,560 --> 00:08:25,320 Speaker 1: What the state is saying. They point to the fact 152 00:08:25,440 --> 00:08:28,640 Speaker 1: that having unlicensed drivers on the road is a very 153 00:08:29,160 --> 00:08:32,199 Speaker 1: dangerous thing, and that, in their views, sometimes making these 154 00:08:32,240 --> 00:08:35,640 Speaker 1: traffic stops are really the only opportunity that law enforcement 155 00:08:35,760 --> 00:08:39,680 Speaker 1: have in order to prevent fatalities. And so they even 156 00:08:39,679 --> 00:08:42,240 Speaker 1: though this is sort of a routine, maybe seems like 157 00:08:42,240 --> 00:08:44,200 Speaker 1: not such a big deal, you're just pulling a car over, 158 00:08:44,640 --> 00:08:47,520 Speaker 1: from the government's view, it actually is something a lot 159 00:08:47,559 --> 00:08:50,480 Speaker 1: more serious than that. And at the same time, from 160 00:08:50,480 --> 00:08:53,320 Speaker 1: the defense point of view, it's a lot more serious 161 00:08:53,360 --> 00:08:55,439 Speaker 1: than the government is giving a credit for in its 162 00:08:55,440 --> 00:08:58,040 Speaker 1: own right, And by that that's going to sort of 163 00:08:58,080 --> 00:09:01,319 Speaker 1: the argument that if it isn't the person driving whose 164 00:09:01,320 --> 00:09:04,920 Speaker 1: license is revoked, then they're being subjected to a seizure 165 00:09:04,960 --> 00:09:08,000 Speaker 1: that they otherwise wouldn't be subjected to if an officer 166 00:09:08,080 --> 00:09:11,640 Speaker 1: had attempted to confirm their identity first. So there are 167 00:09:11,640 --> 00:09:14,680 Speaker 1: those two arguments. On both sides. There certainly are competing interests, 168 00:09:14,679 --> 00:09:16,560 Speaker 1: and we're just going to have to see what the 169 00:09:16,559 --> 00:09:19,960 Speaker 1: court does with all that. Thanks Jordan's that's Jordan Reuben, 170 00:09:20,120 --> 00:09:24,240 Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Legal Editor. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg 171 00:09:24,320 --> 00:09:27,360 Speaker 1: Law Podcast. You can subscribe and listen to the show 172 00:09:27,400 --> 00:09:32,120 Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. 173 00:09:32,520 --> 00:09:37,120 Speaker 1: I'm June Brosso. This is Bloomberg Ye.