Cummins v. United States

Background

Three men—Gregory Cummins, William Trigg, and Mario Enriquez-Nevarez—were stopped by police for routine traffic issues (failing to go on a green light, driving with a suspended license, and a broken taillight). Each stop led to a search and the recovery of illegal drugs. The federal appeals courts in the Eighth, Seventh, and Fifth Circuits held that because a reasonable officer could have made those traffic stops, the drug evidence was admissible, and the defendants lost on appeal.

Reasoning

The question presented to the Supreme Court was whether these traffic stops were merely pretexts to investigate drug crimes and whether the resulting evidence should have been suppressed. The Court declined to review the cases—denying certiorari—which means the Supreme Court did not decide the core legal question. By denying review, the Court left the appeals courts’ decisions in place that upheld evidence when a traffic stop could reasonably have been made.

Real world impact

For now, law enforcement and prosecutors keep the benefit of the appeals courts’ approach in these cases: minor traffic violations that a reasonable officer could point to may continue to lead to searches and evidence that courts will allow at trial. The denial is not a final ruling on the legal question nationwide; the underlying dispute about pretextual stops and circuit disagreement remains unresolved and could be taken up again later.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White dissented from the denial and said he would have granted review to resolve this recurring issue and the split among the appeals courts.