United States v. Sokolow

490 U.S. 1 (1989)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Sokolow (D) was stopped by DEA agents upon his arrival at Honolulu International Airport. They found 1,063 grams of cocaine in his carry-on luggage. The agents knew the following: that (1) D paid $2,100 for two airplane tickets from a roll of $20 bills; (2) D traveled under a name that did not match the name under which his telephone number was listed; (3) his original destination was Miami, a source city for illicit drugs; (4) D stayed in Miami for only 48 hours, even though a round-trip flight from Honolulu to Miami takes 20 hours; (5) D appeared nervous during his trip; and (6) D checked none of his luggage. After D and his companion left on their trip, a ticket agent informed an Officer of D's cash purchase of tickets to Miami and the Officer began an investigation with the ticket agent verifying it was D’s voice on the answering machine at the home address. They found that D was only going for 3 days and DEA agents observed him being very nervous at his L.A. stopover. Both D and his companion never checked their luggage for the entire trip. When D arrived back in Honolulu, agents stopped him when he hailed a cab. 'Donker,' a narcotics detector dog, alerted on D's brown shoulder bag. D was arrested. D was advised of his constitutional rights and declined to make any statements. The agents obtained a warrant to search the shoulder bag. They found no illicit drugs, but the bag did contain several suspicious documents indicating respondent's involvement in drug trafficking. Donker reexamined the remaining luggage, and this time the dog alerted on a medium sized Louis Vuitton bag. Agents allowed D to leave for the night but kept his luggage. The next morning, after a second dog confirmed Donker's alert, the agents obtained a warrant and found 1,063 grams of cocaine inside the bag. D was indicted for possession with the intent to distribute cocaine. The trial court denied his motion to suppress the cocaine and other evidence seized from his luggage, finding that the DEA agents had a reasonable suspicion. D then entered a conditional plea of guilty to the offense charged. The Court of Appeals reversed holding that the DEA agents did not have a reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. The majority determined reasonable suspicion by analyzing the facts of 'ongoing criminal activity,' and facts describing 'personal characteristics' of drug couriers. The majority that the personal characteristics were only relevant if there was evidence of ongoing criminal behavior. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.