What does the term "pretextual stop" refer to following the Whren v. U.S. ruling?

The term "pretextual stop," particularly in the context of the Whren v. U.S. ruling, refers to stops made by law enforcement for minor traffic violations as a way to investigate more serious criminal activity. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Whren established that law enforcement officers can stop a vehicle for a legitimate traffic violation, even if the underlying motivation is to pursue an investigation that would not warrant a stop on its own.

This ruling clarifies that the legality of a traffic stop is based on whether the officer observed a violation of traffic law, regardless of whether the officer's subjective intent was to investigate further due to suspicions of criminal activity. Thus, "pretextual stops" are inherently linked to the use of minor traffic infractions as a lawful pretext for further investigation.

In contrast, stops based solely on a hunch, stops without any traffic violations observed, or stops that do not require police justification do not align with the legal framework established by the Whren case. These situations do not involve a legitimate traffic violation as the basis for a stop, making them legally questionable or improper in the context of law enforcement practices.