City of St. Paul v. Uber
Facts
Officer Mathison stopped appellant's pickup truck at about 2:52 a.m. in the Summit-University area of St. Paul after seeing the truck twice within about 30 minutes and learning by radio check that it was registered to a Moundsview address. The officer admitted appellant was driving lawfully, was not driving erratically, did not stop, slow down, pick anyone up, circle the block, or interact with any known or suspected prostitutes, and the officer had no outside information linking appellant to criminal activity. The officer testified he considered appellant suspicious because he was alone, out late, seen twice in the area, and from outside the area, which the officer associated with persons looking for prostitutes. After the stop, the officer learned appellant's license was revoked and expired.
Issue
Did the officer have reasonable articulable suspicion to stop appellant's vehicle based on the facts that he was alone, driving late at night in a prostitution area, seen twice within 30 minutes, and operating a vehicle registered to an out-of-area address?
Rule
An investigatory vehicle stop complies with the Fourth Amendment only if the officer has a reasonable suspicion, supported by articulable facts, that criminal activity may be afoot, and a particular and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. A profile stop cannot rest solely on innocent facts such as lawful presence in a high-crime area, late hour, being alone, being seen twice in the area, or being from another town, without more.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
If Evan moves to suppress evidence found after the stop, how should the court rule?