Drummond rallies 28 states to defend police; U.S. Supreme Court delivers victory
OKLAHOMA CITY (April 23, 2026) – The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decisive victory for law enforcement this week after Attorney General Gentner Drummond led a 28-state coalition supporting the ability of police officers to do their jobs.
In the case of District of Columbia v. R.W., the Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling that had thrown out a police stop because the D.C. Court of Appeals decided the officer lacked reasonable suspicion. The case stems from a February 2023 incident when an officer pulled into an apartment parking lot around 2 a.m. and saw two people immediately flee a vehicle. The driver then began backing out of the parking space with the rear door still hanging open which prompted the officer to investigate.
The DC Court of Appeals had thrown out the stop by picking apart each fact in isolation rather than considering the totality of the circumstances, as Supreme Court precedent requires.
In October 2025, Drummond and the coalition filed an amicus brief in support of the officer’s actions. In the brief, the coalition argued that the lower court’s ruling made no sense and would tie the hands of officers trying to keep their communities safe.
“Common sense matters,” said Drummond. “A good officer reads a situation – the time of night, what he sees, what he knows – and makes a call. Courts shouldn't be Monday-morning quarterbacking those decisions by nitpicking each detail in isolation. Oklahoma stood up for law enforcement on this one, and the Supreme Court backed us up.”
The issue has particular significance in Oklahoma, where cross-deputized officers in the eastern part of the state can face different constitutional standards depending on whether a case is prosecuted in the state or federal court. Oklahoma’s brief highlighted that confusion – and the public-safety consequences of it – as a central reason for the Supreme Court to step in.
The Supreme Court held that the police officer had reasonable suspicion for the stop under the Fourth Amendment. The Court summarily reversed the DC Court of Appeals – a step the Supreme Court takes only when a lower court’s error is clear enough that full briefing and oral arguments are unnecessary.
