U.S. Supreme Court News | District of Columbia v. R.W.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. R.W., 608 U.S. ___ (2026). [1] The decision was per curiam, meaning an opinion of the court by multiple judges. [2] Justice Sotomayor noted that she would have denied the petition for writ of certiorari and Justice Jackson dissented, meaning she disagreed with the Court’s rationale.

The operative facts showed that the police received a call about a suspicious vehicle at an address in Washington D.C. The officer, Clifford Vanterpool, responded around 2:00 a.m. When Vanterpool was turning into the apartment complex, two people fled from the car, leaving at least one car door open. Meanwhile, the driver started to back out with the car door still open. Vanterpool pulled behind the car and ordered the driver, R.W., out of the car at gunpoint. R.W. was a minor and was charged with various crimes based on the results of the stop and search.

R.W. moved to suppress the results of the search. The trial court denied suppression because “(1) the officer had received a radio dispatch call regarding a suspicious vehicle at a specified address, (2) the officer saw two persons fleeing from a vehicle upon his arrival, (3) [i]t was almost 2 a.m., and (4) as the officer approached the car, it began backing out of the parking space … while the rear driver’s side door [was] still open.” The D.C. Court of Appeals reversed the denial of suppression, found the trial court erred in considering the radio dispatch and the flight of R.W.’s companions, and then concluded the late hour and car’s movement did not amount to reasonable suspicion.

Considering the issue, the Court noted the well-settled holding that reasonable suspicion arises when, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting criminal wrongdoing. This determination depends on the facts and practical considerations of everyday life “on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.” The Court found that Vanterpool had reasonable suspicion based on the unprovoked flight and the fact that car passengers are often engaged in a common plan with the driver. The Court also found that most drivers would not respond to their passengers fleeing and leaving the doors open by reversing.

This case underscores the important point that Fourth Amendment issues and unreasonable search issues are often complicated, fact-intensive, and do not turn on bright-line rules. If you or someone you love needs assistance on appeal or in seeking postconviction relief, contact Peter Armstrong, Attorney at Law, for a free consultation.

References:

1.    Available at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25-248_8m58.pdf

2.    See per curiam, defined at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/per_curiam