District of Columbia v. R.W. · ¶15
“[T]he Fourth Amendment requires . . . that a court `slosh [its] way through' a `factbound morass.' ” Barnes v. Felix, 605 U. S. 73, 80 (2025) (quoting Scott v. Harris, 550 U. S. 372, 383 (2007)). There may be no “ `easy-to-apply legal test' ” or “ `on/off switch' ” in this context, Barnes, 605 U. S., at 80 (quoting Scott, 550 U. S., at 382–383), but one thing is clear: “The `totality of the circumstances' requires courts to consider `the whole picture,' ” Wesby, 583 U. S., at 60 (quoting Cortez, 449 U. S., at 417). The D. C. Court of Appeals expressly declined to do that. 334 A. 3d, at 599. It instead considered only the observations that “(1) it was 2:00 a.m. and (2) R. W. reversed a few feet in a parking spot while the vehicle's rear door was open.” Id., at 605. Expressly “excis[ed]” from its analysis was, for example, the compelling fact that two individuals fed the vehicle as soon…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.