* Titles and Citation: United State V. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2001) * Procedural history * The case is before the court for respondent’s motion to suppress evidence * Agent Stoddard did not have reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle as set forth by the Fourth Amendment * District Court of Arizona denied respondent’s motions to suppress * Facts of the Case * The afternoon of January 1998 Agent Clinton Stoddard was working at a border checkpoint by highway 191 30 mile north of Douglas Arizona * Respondent was traveling on an unpaved road and area Know to be taken by drug smugglers * respondents minivan set off the magnetic sensors which are used to alert boarder officer * Officer Stoddard spotted the respondent and asked permission to search the minivan * Issue(s) * Does Agent have good cause to stop Respondent minivan in compliance of the Fourth Amendment? * Holding * The court rule in favor of Agent Stoddard after examining the facts stated Stoddard had reasonable suspicion to believe that respondent was engage in drugs smuggling * Reasoning * The court applied the reasoning Stoddard to inter from his observation, registration check, experience as a border patrol agent. Stoddard had reasonable suspicion to believe that Arvizu was engaged in illegal activity, having considered the totality of the circumstances and given due weight to the factual inferences drawn by the law enforcement officer and District Court Judge. The Court reasoned that, although each factor alone could have appeared innocent, when taken together they sufficed to form a particularized and objective basis for Stoddard's stopping the vehicle, making the stop reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment

* Evaluation/Rule of law: The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the Government, and