## Facts

- DEA agents stopped Andrew Sokolow at Honolulu International Airport during an investigation of suspected drug trafficking.
- Agents relied on multiple observed and known facts, including:
  - He paid $2,100 for two round-trip airline tickets using a roll of $20 bills.
  - He traveled under a name that did not match the name associated with his listed telephone number.
  - His destination was Miami, identified by agents as a source city for illicit drugs.
  - He stayed in Miami for approximately 48 hours despite a lengthy round-trip travel time from Honolulu.
  - He appeared nervous.
  - He checked no luggage.
- After the stop, a drug-detection dog alerted to his luggage.
- Agents obtained search warrants, searched the luggage, and found 1,063 grams of cocaine in his carry-on bag.
- Sokolow was indicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourth Amendment permitted the investigatory airport stop based on reasonable suspicion supported by specific, articulable facts under the totality of the circumstances.
2. Whether reliance on a set of “drug courier profile” characteristics required additional proof (such as a distinct “ongoing criminal activity” factor or empirical validation) before a stop could be justified.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and reinstated the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress.
- The Court held that the agents had reasonable suspicion to stop Sokolow under Terry v. Ohio.
- The Court rejected the Ninth Circuit’s requirement that reasonable suspicion must include at least one fact showing “ongoing criminal activity” and that the Government must empirically prove profile factors do not describe substantial numbers of innocent travelers.
- The Court concluded that the relevant factors, considered together, provided the minimal objective justification required for a brief investigatory detention.
- The Court held the Fourth Amendment did not require agents to use the least intrusive means available before conducting a Terry stop.

## Legal Principles

- Police may briefly detain a person for investigation when they have reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that criminal activity may be afoot; the standard requires more than a hunch but less than probable cause.
- Reasonable suspicion is assessed under the totality of the circumstances; courts evaluate the “whole picture,” not each fact in isolation.
- Conduct that is individually consistent with innocent activity may, in combination, create reasonable suspicion.
- The fact that observed considerations resemble a “drug courier profile” does not reduce their evidentiary value; labels do not control the Fourth Amendment analysis.
- Courts should not impose rigid multi-part tests or require empirical proof that observed factors are uncommon among innocent people to sustain a Terry stop.
- Officers are not constitutionally required to use the least intrusive investigative technique before initiating a valid investigatory stop.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment allowed the airport stop because, under the totality of the circumstances, the agents had reasonable suspicion based on specific travel-related facts, even though each fact could also describe innocent behavior and even though the facts resembled a drug-courier profile.


United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989)