The U.S. Supreme Court case Arkansas v. Kenneth Andrew Sullivan (2000) revolved around the issue of whether a state can enhance a sentence for driving while intoxicated based on prior convictions in another state, where those convictions would not have been punishable as felonies under the law of the convicting jurisdiction. The defendant, Kenneth Andrew Sullivan, was convicted in Arkansas for driving while intoxicated and sentenced to an enhanced penalty due to his previous similar offenses in New York State. However, he argued that these past offenses should not be considered because they were misdemeanors rather than felonies according to New York laws at that time. The Supreme Court ruled against Sullivan's argument stating that it is permissible for states like Arkansas to consider out-of-state convictions when determining sentencing enhancements even if those crimes are classified differently by other jurisdictions' standards or definitions of felony and misdemeanor crimes.

In the dissenting opinion for Arkansas v. Kenneth Andrew Sullivan, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision to uphold Sullivan's conviction was a misinterpretation of the Fourth Amendment and its protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that by allowing police officers to arrest individuals for minor traffic offenses, even when there is no threat to public safety or risk of flight, it gives law enforcement too much discretionary power which could be used arbitrarily or discriminatorily. Furthermore, he pointed out that such an interpretation contradicts previous court rulings where arrests for petty offenses were deemed unconstitutional unless they were accompanied by additional circumstances justifying custodial arrest. In his view, this ruling undermines individual liberties without significantly advancing any important state interest.