Traffic Stops
This page includes a writing template for analyzing this topic and usage notes to guide its application. In general, the template is designed to serve as a starting point for your analysis. It should be adapted to fit the specific facts of your case and your professor’s preferences.
On this page:
Writing Template
Issue
I: The issue is whether the government’s traffic stop was an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Analysis
R: For a traffic stop to be lawful, an officer must have (1) reasonable suspicion that a traffic or criminal law has been violated, or (2) it must be conducted as part of a constitutionally permissible checkpoint.
1. Reasonable Suspicion
R: Reasonable suspicion exists when an officer can point to specific, articulable facts that, based on the totality of the circumstances, would lead a reasonable officer to believe that a law has been or is being violated. This standard is lower than probable cause but requires more than an mere hunch.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, the officer [did/did not] have reasonable suspicion.
2. Checkpoint
R: At or near the border, traffic stops at checkpoints without reasonable suspicion are allowed under the Fourth Amendment as part of the government’s interest in controlling immigration. Away from the border, traffic checkpoints must (1) be conducted according to a standard procedure that limits discretion by individual officers, preventing arbitrary or random stops and (2) the purpose of the checkpoint must be vehicle-related (e.g., checking for drunk drivers or ensuring compliance with vehicle regulations, rather than general crime control).
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, the checkpoint [was/was not] permissible.
Conclusion
C: Therefore, the government’s traffic stop [was/was not] an unreasonable seizure.
(A common counterargument is that the seizure/traffic stop was unreasonable because the officer had an ulterior motive. The following analysis will properly analyze that issue.)
Pretextual Stop
R: A pretextual stop occurs when an officer stops a vehicle for a minor traffic violation but is motivated by a desire to investigate an unrelated, more serious offense. Pretextual stops are valid as long as the officer has objectively reasonable suspicion of the traffic violation, regardless of the officer’s subjective intent.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, since the officer [had/did not have] reasonable suspicion, the stop [was/was not] permissible.
Usage Notes
JurisJotter templates synthesize legal principles into a practical format that supports the development of well-structured, point-rich analyses in a timed exam.
The template features (1) headers identifying the overall issue, analysis, and conclusion. If the analysis begins with an umbrella rule that identifies elements, factors, or steps of the analysis, it will be followed by subheaders that signpost the analysis of each component.
The template also features (2) IRAC labels at the beginning of each paragraph. These headers and labels are included for educational purposes, offering guidance on structuring your analysis. Your usage of the headers is optional but can be helpful to readers. We advise against including the IRAC labels in submitted work.
The templates serve as a general guide for writing and should be adapted to align with (1) your specific factual circumstances and (2) your professor’s preferences, particularly if your professor provides explicit formulations of rules or analyses. For example, you may add or subtract an element or modify its language. Regardless of whether your professor provides explicit formulations, (3) this template will assist you in crafting point-rich analyses.
Please note that these templates are writing aids and not finished products. They are efficiently designed for exam essays to demonstrate conceptual understanding; thus, they are not comprehensive outlines with historical context or dicta.
Questions or comments? Reach out at [email protected].