In the case of United States v. Ralph Arvizu, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of law enforcement's use of "totality of circumstances" to justify a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The defendant, Ralph Arvizu, was stopped by a Border Patrol agent while driving on an isolated road near the Mexican border known for drug trafficking. The agent cited several suspicious behaviors as reasons for stopping him including slowing down when seeing patrol car and not making eye contact with officer among others which led to discovery of drugs in his vehicle during subsequent search after stoppage. Mr. Arvizu argued that these were not sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion required by Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures but lower courts disagreed leading to appeal at Supreme Court level. The Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings stating that each action taken individually may be innocent but when viewed collectively they could create reasonable suspicion justifying stoppage under Fourth Amendment rules thus endorsing 'totality-of-the-circumstances' approach allowing officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from cumulative information available.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Ralph Arvizu, Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Border Patrol agent's stop of Arvizu based on a series of behaviors that were deemed suspicious but could also be seen as innocent. She argued that this ruling would allow law enforcement officers too much discretion in deciding what constitutes suspicious behavior and could lead to racial profiling or other forms of discrimination. Furthermore, she contended that the Court should have given more weight to Arvizu’s explanation for his actions rather than relying solely on the officer’s interpretation. In her view, allowing such broad discretion threatens Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.