48:
has described the totality of the circumstances test as an analytical framework where decision makers are not bound by "rigid" rules, but instead are free to consider a range of evidence when making decisions. John Barker Waite also contrasted the totality of the circumstances test against rigid rules; he wrote that a judge's determination about a defendant's guilt will always be based on their reactions "to the totality of the circumstances", and the basis for such determinations cannot be "reduced to rule".
47:
Cathy E. Moore described the totality of the circumstances test as a "balancing approach" rather than a strict application of "analytical and evidentiary rules", and
Michael Coenen wrote that a totality of the circumstances test is the "antithesis" of an "inflexible checklist". Likewise, Kit Kinports
284:
279, 306 (1945–1946) ("What constitutes reasonable ground for a peace officer, or a private person, to believe that a felony has been committed by the arrestee has never been reduced to rule, and could not be. Whether such a belief is or is not reasonable depends upon the reaction of the particular
83:, the Supreme Court affirmed that "lower court judges must reject rigid rules, bright-line tests, and mechanistic inquiries in favor of a more flexible, all-things-considered approach." However, some scholars have suggested that the Supreme Court's recent rulings in
27:. Under the totality of the circumstances test, courts focus "on all the circumstances of a particular case, rather than any one factor". In the United States, totality tests are used as a method of analysis in several different areas of the law. For example, in
387:
essentially articulated a rigid test that reasonable suspicion of driving under the influence arises whenever an anonymous informant reports having observed even one instance of certain reckless driving behaviors."); see also
Christopher D. Sommers,
212:, the Supreme Court has emphasized that the Fourth Amendment’s suspicion requirements — the probable cause required to arrest and search, the reasonable suspicion needed to stop and frisk — are totality-of-the-circumstances tests.").
66:, the Supreme Court held that the totality of the circumstances test should be used to assess whether an anonymous tip is sufficient to provide probable cause. Writing for a majority of the Court,
95:
represent a departure from the Court's prior totality test jurisprudence by introducing "drug-dog and drunk-driving exceptions to the totality-of-the-circumstances approach."
67:
60:
held that a totality test should be used to determine whether an individual qualifies as a "farmer" under United States bankruptcy law. In its 1983 decision in
298:
198:
383:
has the practical effect of adopting the sweeping rule that a positive alert by a certified or recently trained drug dog gives rise to probable cause.
164:, 27 IDEA 241, 250 (1987) (discussing the use of totality tests to determine whether a patent was willfully infringed upon) with David Allen Peterson,
397:
57:
172:
437, 451 (1984) (discussing the use of totality tests "for determining probable cause based upon an informer's tip").
28:
166:
Criminal
Procedure: Totality of the Circumstances Test for Determining Probable Cause Applied to Informer's Tips
399:
The Devil Is in the
Details: The Supreme Court Erodes the Fourth Amendment in Applying Reasonable Suspicion in
91:
77:
would not be "restricted in their authority to make probable cause determinations". In its 2013 ruling in
23:
test refers to a method of analysis where decisions are based on all available information rather than
396:
327, 352 (2015) (discussing departure from earlier precedent); George M. Dery III & Kevin Meehan,
319:
Fourth
Amendment — Totality of the Circumstances Approach to Probable Cause Based on Informant's Tips
223:
Fourth
Amendment — Totality of the Circumstances Approach to Probable Cause Based on Informant's Tips
104:
370:
258:
182:
130:
422:
139:
75, 75 (2014) (describing the totality of the circumstances test as a rejection of "rigid" rules).
427:
302:
202:
390:
Presumed Drunk Until Proven Sober: The
Dangers and Implications of Anonymous Tips Following
347:
308: (1937) ("In every case the totality of the facts is to be considered and appraised.").
305:
239:
32:
8:
110:
205:
193:
85:
79:
70:
62:
16:
Refers to a method of analysis where decisions are based on all available information
24:
162:
The
Evolution of the Totality of the Circumstances Test for Willful Infringement
36:
416:
407:
275, 277 (2015) (discussing "dilution" of the reasonable suspicion standard).
73:
explained that a totality test was superior to a bright line rule because
372:
Probable Cause and
Reasonable Suspicion: Totality Tests or Rigid Rules?
260:
Probable Cause and
Reasonable Suspicion: Totality Tests or Rigid Rules?
184:
Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion: Totality Tests or Rigid Rules?
132:
Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion: Totality Tests or Rigid Rules?
74:
285:
judge who makes the decision to the totality of the circumstances.").
39:
is based on a consideration of the totality of the circumstances.
208: (1983)) ("Since its decision more than thirty years ago in
295:
First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Bridgeport, Conn. v. Beach
151:, Totality of circumstances test (Accessed March 2, 2016).
356:
644, 647 (2014) (internal quotations omitted) (citing
414:
405:Wash. & Lee J. Civil Rts. & Soc. Just.
248:644, 647 (2014) (internal quotations omitted).
142:
415:
360:, 133 S. Ct. 1050, 1055–56 (2013)).
13:
58:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
439:
363:
340:
328:
311:
288:
270:
251:
232:
215:
175:
154:
123:
42:
1:
323:J. Crim. L. & Criminology
227:J. Crim. L. & Criminology
117:
92:Prado Navarette v. California
21:totality of the circumstances
392:Navarette v. California, 60
7:
98:
10:
444:
349:Rules Against Rulification
241:Rules Against Rulification
51:
29:United States criminal law
160:Compare Timothy N. Trop,
31:, a determination about
401:Navarette v. California
385:Navarette v. California
191:75, 75 (2014) (citing
149:Black's Law Dictionary
56:As early as 1937, the
105:Aguilar–Spinelli test
33:reasonable suspicion
379:75, 86–87 (2014) ("
276:John Barker Waite,
111:Illinois v. Wardlow
337:, 462 U.S. at 420.
325:1249, 1249 (1983).
229:1249, 1255 (1983).
381:Florida v. Harris
358:Florida v. Harris
210:Illinois v. Gates
194:Illinois v. Gates
86:Florida v. Harris
80:Florida v. Harris
71:William Rehnquist
63:Illinois v. Gates
25:bright-line rules
435:
408:
406:
395:
378:
367:
361:
355:
346:Michael Coenen,
344:
338:
332:
326:
324:
317:Cathy E. Moore,
315:
309:
292:
286:
283:
274:
268:
266:
255:
249:
247:
238:Michael Coenen,
236:
230:
228:
221:Cathy E. Moore,
219:
213:
190:
179:
173:
171:
158:
152:
150:
146:
140:
138:
127:
19:In the law, the
443:
442:
438:
437:
436:
434:
433:
432:
423:Legal procedure
413:
412:
411:
404:
393:
376:
368:
364:
353:
345:
341:
333:
329:
322:
316:
312:
293:
289:
281:
275:
271:
264:
256:
252:
245:
237:
233:
226:
220:
216:
188:
180:
176:
169:
159:
155:
148:
147:
143:
136:
128:
124:
120:
101:
54:
45:
17:
12:
11:
5:
441:
431:
430:
425:
410:
409:
377:U. Pa. L. Rev.
369:Kit Kinports,
362:
339:
327:
310:
287:
269:
267:75, 75 (2014).
265:U. Pa. L. Rev.
257:Kit Kinports,
250:
231:
214:
189:U. Pa. L. Rev.
181:Kit Kinports,
174:
153:
141:
137:U. Pa. L. Rev.
129:Kit Kinports,
121:
119:
116:
115:
114:
107:
100:
97:
53:
50:
44:
41:
37:probable cause
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
440:
429:
426:
424:
421:
420:
418:
402:
400:
391:
386:
382:
374:
373:
366:
359:
351:
350:
343:
336:
331:
320:
314:
307:
304:
300:
296:
291:
279:
278:Law of Arrest
273:
262:
261:
254:
243:
242:
235:
224:
218:
211:
207:
204:
200:
196:
195:
186:
185:
178:
170:Washburn L.J.
167:
163:
157:
145:
134:
133:
126:
122:
113:
112:
108:
106:
103:
102:
96:
94:
93:
88:
87:
82:
81:
76:
72:
69:
65:
64:
59:
49:
40:
38:
34:
30:
26:
22:
428:Evidence law
398:
394:S.D. L. Rev.
389:
384:
380:
371:
365:
357:
348:
342:
334:
330:
318:
313:
294:
290:
282:Tex. L. Rev.
277:
272:
259:
253:
240:
234:
222:
217:
209:
192:
183:
177:
165:
161:
156:
144:
131:
125:
109:
90:
84:
78:
61:
55:
46:
20:
18:
75:magistrates
43:Description
417:Categories
118:References
354:Yale L.J.
246:Yale L.J.
306:435, 439
99:See also
68:Justice
52:History
352:, 124
244:, 124
403:, 21
335:Gates
321:, 74
301:
280:, 24
225:, 74
201:
168:, 23
375:163
303:U.S.
263:163
203:U.S.
187:163
135:163
89:and
299:301
206:213
199:462
35:or
419::
297:,
197:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.