District of Columbia v. R.W. · ¶14

After watching two people fee from a suspicious car, a reasonable officer surely would question the driver's next move. Why would the driver hurriedly back up the car without even closing a car door left open by his feeing companions? Perhaps one could imagine an innocent explanation for such unusual behavior—the court below, for example, surmised that R. W. “may not even have noticed that his companions left the door open.” 334 A. 3d, at 605. “But we have consistently recognized that reasonable suspicion `need not rule out the possibility of innocent conduct.' ” Na varette, 572 U. S., at 403 (quoting Arvizu, 534 U. S., at 277). Based on everything the officer observed on the night in question, he drew the “commonsense inference” that all three people in the car—including the driver—were trying to hide wrongdoing from the police. Glover, 589 U. S., at 381.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.