Terxidor

facts by resident judges and local law enforcement officers.” United States v.

Valdes-Vega, 738 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc) (internal citation and

23-652 quotation marks omitted). In determining whether an officer had reasonable

suspicion to stop a vehicle, courts “must look at the totality of the circumstances of

each case” to see whether the detaining officer had a “particularized and objective

basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273

(2002) (internal citations and quotations omitted). But “[t]o be reasonable is not to

be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of

government officials . . . .” Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 60–61 (2014).

“An officer might, for example, stop a motorist for traveling alone in a high-

occupancy vehicle lane, only to discover upon approaching the car that two children

are slumped over asleep in the back seat. The driver has not violated the law, but

neither has the officer violated the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 57. “[O]bjectively

reasonable” mistakes of fact will not invalidate an otherwise lawful…