This article discusses four recent Supreme Court decisions involving vehicle stops: Whren v. United States, Ohio v. Robinette, Maryland v. Wilson, and Ornelas v. United States. Collecively these reveal a strong, new consensus on the Court about the proper application of the Fourth Amendment. This consensus results not from a settled body of doctrine but rather from shared, largely unspoken understandings — understandings that heavily favor law enforcement and that, more troublingly, disregard the distinctive grievances and concerns of minority motorists stopped by the police. In ways the recent vehicle stop cases help to illustrate, this disregard is deeply embedded in the structure of current Fourth Amendment doctrine, and it seriously constrains the doctrine’s growth.