Totality of the circumstances

In the law, the totality of the circumstances test refers to a method of analysis where decisions are based on all available information rather than bright-line rules. Under the totality of the circumstances test, courts focus "on all the circumstances of a particular case, rather than any one factor"., Totality of circumstances test (Accessed March 2, 2016). In the United States, totality tests are used as a method of analysis in several different areas of the law. For example, in United States criminal law, a determination about reasonable suspicion or probable cause is based on a consideration of the totality of the circumstances.

Description

Cathy E. Moore described the totality of the circumstances test as a "balancing approach" rather than a strict application of "analytical and evidentiary rules", and Michael Coenen wrote that a totality of the circumstances test is the "antithesis" of an "inflexible checklist". Likewise, Kit Kinports has described the totality of the circumstances test as an analytical framework where decision makers are not bound by "rigid" rules, but instead are free to consider a range of evidence when making decisions. John Barker Waite also contrasted the totality of the circumstances test against rigid rules; he wrote that a judge's determination about a defendant's guilt will always be based on their reactions "to the totality of the circumstances", and the basis for such determinations cannot be "reduced to rule".

History

As early as 1937, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a totality test should be used to determine whether an individual qualifies as a "farmer" under United States bankruptcy law. In its 1983 decision in ''Illinois v. Gates'', the Supreme Court held that the totality of the circumstances test should be used to assess whether an anonymous tip is sufficient to provide probable cause. Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice William Rehnquist explained that a totality test was superior to a bright line rule because magistrates would not be "restricted in their authority to make probable cause determinations". In its 2013 ruling in '' Florida v. Harris'', the Supreme Court affirmed that "lower court judges must reject rigid rules, bright-line
tests, and mechanistic inquiries in favor of a more flexible, all-things-considered approach." However, some scholars have suggested that the Supreme Court's recent rulings in '' Florida v. Harris'' and '' Prado Navarette v. California'' represent a departure from the Court's prior totality test jurisprudence by introducing "drug-dog and drunk-driving exceptions to the totality-of-the-circumstances approach."Kit Kinports
''Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion: Totality Tests or Rigid Rules?''
163 75, 86–87 (2014) ("''Florida v. Harris'' has the practical effect of adopting the sweeping rule that a positive alert by a certified or recently trained drug dog gives rise to probable cause. ''Navarette v. California'' essentially articulated a rigid test that reasonable suspicion of driving under the influence arises whenever an anonymous informant reports having observed even one instance of certain reckless driving behaviors."); see also Christopher D. Sommers, ''Presumed Drunk Until Proven Sober: The Dangers and Implications of Anonymous Tips Following'' Navarette v. California, 60 327, 352 (2015) (discussing departure from earlier precedent); George M. Dery III & Kevin Meehan
''The Devil Is in the Details: The Supreme Court Erodes the Fourth Amendment in Applying Reasonable Suspicion in'' Navarette v. California
21 275, 277 (2015) (discussing "dilution" of the reasonable suspicion standard).

See also

* Aguilar–Spinelli test
* ''Illinois v. Wardlow''

References

{{Reflist, 30em

Legal procedure
Evidence law