Supreme Court Case Study: Kansas v. Glover - Fourth Amendment Analysis

This case study examines the Supreme Court case of Kansas v. Glover, which revolves around the Fourth Amendment and the concept of reasonable suspicion in the context of a traffic stop. The case involves a police officer, Mark Mehrer, who stopped a vehicle after discovering that the registered owner, Charles Glover Jr., had a suspended license. The central legal question is whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop, given the knowledge of the suspended license but without directly observing any traffic violation or confirming who was driving. The District Court of Douglas County initially suppressed the evidence, but the Kansas Court of Appeals reversed, arguing that the officer could stop the vehicle based on the owner's suspended license. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court. The case references the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as relevant precedents such as Wolf v. Colorado, Boyd v. United States, and Mapp v. Ohio. The student's analysis includes both a summary of the court's opinion and a separate opinion, discussing the implications of the ruling on constitutional rights. The case highlights the balance between law enforcement's authority and individual rights under the Fourth Amendment.

Running head: KANSAS V. GLOVER
KANSAS V. GLOVER
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1KANSAS V. GLOVER
KANSAS v. CHARLES GLOVER
Argued: November 04, 2019
Decided: Pending
 Syllabus
 Opinion, [student’s name]
 Separate, [Student’s Separate Opinion]
Syllabus
The question in issue in this case is whether a police officer has rational disbelief to stop the
vehicle if the Police officer had knowledge about the suspended license of the vehicle's
registered owner, but he is uncertain whether the registered owner is driving the vehicle or
not. Refering to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, police officers may
stop a driver of a car about whom they are doubtful about committing a crime. Wolf v.
Colorado, 338 U.S. 25,[1]
Opinion
(Student), Opinion of the Court
MR. JUSTICE (Student), delivered the opinion of the Court.
As formally elaborated in the syllabus to the opinion, the Supreme Court of Kansas
established that Glover’s sentence was not lawful holding that the conjecture without any
authority “stacked” presumptions and would release the onus of displaying a rational doubt
for a stop.

2KANSAS V. GLOVER
Mark Mehrer who was a police officer was on patrol on April 28, 2016 while a 1995
Chevrolet truck was passing by. He performs a check on the truck’s license plate number and
revealed that Charles Glover, Jr., was the registered owner of the truck, without any valid
driving license. Mehrer did not examine any traffic disobedience, nor tried to confirm
whether who drove the truck. Mehrer seized the truck on the assumption that Glover was
driving without a valid license.
The State of Kansas convicted Glover as a habitual offender. Glover countered by moving to
suppress on the basis the proof rescued from the truck, opposing that Deputy Mehrer ddoes
not posess the authority to stop on the basis of mere suspicion.
The District Court of Douglas County permitted Glover’s motion to suppress, stating that
Deputy Mehrer must not presumed that Glover was driving the truck purely from the
information that Glover was the registered owner. Kansas Court of Appeals further
altered the lower court’s verdict stating that police officers can stop a car or other vehicle
where they have the knowledge that the license of the vehicle’s owner has been rescinded.
Court referred the case findings in Boyd v. the United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630[2] stated that,
referring the fact that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are overlapping to each other by
which the court held that a vague statement in a criminal case which, construed in one way,
would be flawed.
Petitioner Kansas contended that the Fourth Amendment allows the police officers to stop
and examine people publicly and examine in brief any suspicious conduct. Kansas stated that
an officer can also investigate if he has a rational suspicion that the driver is breaching the
law, counting by driving with a postponed license. Kansas further points out that the Fourth
Amendment allows that such a stop under the authority of seizure.

3KANSAS V. GLOVER
The Court further noted referring the facts that an innocent driver must be freed after a
routine investigation because the officer’s power to stop the driver ends upon the discovery of
a valid license in the driver’s possession
The court specifically refers to the judgment of Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643[3], stated that,
”In an opinion authored by Justice Tom C. Clark, the majority brushed aside First
Amendment issues and declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in
violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court. Justice Stewart concurred
in the judgment but agreed fully with Part I of Justice Harlan's dissent and expressed no view
as to the merits of the constitutional issue”.
1. 338 U.S. 25,- decided in 1949,
2. 116 U.S. 616, 630- decided in 1886,
3. 367 U.S. 643- decided in 1961
(Student) Separate Opinion
Memorandum of MR. JUSTICE (Name of the Student).
Regarding the view of the State Court, I would, however, alter the judgment in this case,
because I am influenced that the sstipulation of Fourth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, based on which conviction of the petitioner's was initiated, is, not "consistent
with the rights of free thought and expression assured against state action by the Fourth
Amendment."
Reference:
Boyd v. the United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630

4KANSAS V. GLOVER
Mapp V. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643
Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25,