RHC 158,580/BA and Its Implications for the Jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice Regarding Judicial Review of Personal Searches in Criminal Procedure
stop and search; reasonable suspicion; Superior Court of Justice; secondary criminalisation; institutional racism
This dissertation examines the implications of RHC 158.580/BA for the case law of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice on the judicial review of stop and search. It departs from the finding that the indeterminacy of the expression “reasonable suspicion”, in article 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, transfers to the police officer the definition of the criteria for the stop and hinders its subsequent review, with racially selective effects. After reconstructing the precedent through the lens of the public policy cycle and locating stop and search as the inaugural moment of secondary criminalisation, the research submits the question to empirical testing over 1,458 judgments delivered between 2019 and 2025, by means of categorical content analysis with individual verification and a three-stratum probability sampling design. The findings indicate that the precedent generated massive litigation without unifying its application: unlawfulness is recognised in 30.5% of the corpus, with 16.7% in the Fifth Panel and 50.6% in the Sixth — a divergence that predates the judgment and was not settled by it. Nervousness alone no longer validates the measure, having been replaced by observable conduct; the Court, however, does not examine the origin of the factual description, so that specificity does not amount to verifiability. It concludes that the insufficiency found does not stem from the standard itself, but from the absence of the recording and supervision layers that would render it reviewable, and proposes a duty to document every stop, including those yielding no result.