Diana Everett
Briana Calhoun
Bella Mullen
Graciella Bragg
United States vs. Andrew Sokolow
April 3, 1989
This is a drug stop case at an airport. In July 1984, Andrew Sokolow purchased two
round trip tickets from Honolulu to Miami . The flight made stops at Los Angeles and Denver. He
purchased these tickets using cash, of which he looked to have about $4,000, using the names
Andrew Kray and Janet Norian. He gave the agent his home phone number, which did not
belong to him, and this alerted airport officials that he was not using his real name. Other agents
and passengers noticed that at each layover he looked nervous and continued to check on his
four bags that he decided not to check and carry on. Sokolow only stayed in Miami, a source
city for illicit drugs, for less than 48 hours, even though a round-trip flight from Honolulu to Miami
takes 20 hours. After arriving back in Honolulu they immediately left the airport and tried to hail
a cab. They were immediately confronted by a police officer and three Drug Enforcement
Agents. The police officer, Kempshall, asked Sokolow for his airline ticket and identification
which he claimed not to have. He expressed to the agents that his name was Sokolow but he
was traveling under his mother’s maiden name, “Kray.” After this stop, a series of events lead
the police officers to find 1,063 grams of cocaine and he was arrested. The legal question the
court has to answer is, did the DEA agents have reasonable suspicion, as needed under Terry
vs. Ohio, that respondent was engaged in wrongdoing when they encountered him on the
sidewalk?
In this case the court is trying to decide whether or not the DEA agents had reasonable
suspicion when they confronted Sokolow outside the airport. The rule from the precedent case
Terry vs. Ohio (1968) states that, “[if] a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him
reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot…he is
entitled...to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons...”. In other
words an officer must have reasonable suspicion to conduct a search. This rule applies to this
case because they are both stop and/or frisk cases. The definition of reasonable suspicion is,
“not capable of precise definition; it is more than a hunch or mere speculation on the part of an
officer, but less than the probable cause necessary for arrest. It may arise out of a contact, or it
may exist prior to a contact”.
In United States against Andrew Sokolow the petitioner was confronted on the sidewalk
after several plane flights. Agents had noticed a series of questionable events that lead them to
suspect his involvement in drug trafficking. Each of Sokolow’s actions are suspicious for obvious
reasons, individually each action could be overlooked, but because they all happened as a
series of events the agents had more than enough suspicion to stop Sokolow. Sokolow first
alerted the DEA officials after he purchased two round-trip tickets with a large sum of cash.
Shortly, “after the couple left for their flight, the ticket agent informed Officer John McCarthy of
the Honolulu Police Department of respondent's cash purchase of tickets to Miami” (2). This
shows that airport officials find it suspicious to pay with large amounts of cash. The tickets
reveled that Sokolow used a false name, there should be no reason that Sokolow would have to
use a different name when purchasing plane tickets. The agents noticed that "he appeared to
be very nervous looking all around the waiting area" (2). His planned trip destinations were all a
source city for illicit drugs where he did not stay for a long time. He obviously was worried about
his bags so he kept them with him at all times. The court must put the pieces of this puzzle
together. Because everything happened as a series of events, it was completely reasonable for
agents to approach Sokolow.
The DEA agents have reasonable suspicion, as needed under Terry vs. Ohio, that Andrew
Sokolow was engaged in wrongdoing when they encountered him on the sidewalk. The officers
noticed unusual conduct which lead them to conclude that criminal activity could be a foot. They
had all of the components for reasonable suspicion before they confronted him on the
sidewalks. The DEA had reasonable suspicion to stop Andrew Sokolow on the sidewalk due to
his suspicious activity and did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights.