Seizure of the Person Flashcards
INS v. Delgado
Facts
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) conducted “factory surveys” at several workplaces, including the Southern California Davis Pleating Co. and Mr. Pleat, to identify and apprehend illegal aliens. These actions were part of the INS’s duty to enforce immigration laws. INS agents, armed and carrying walkie-talkies, entered these factories, where they positioned themselves at exits and asked employees about their citizenship. If employees responded credibly that they were U.S. citizens, questioning ceased; otherwise, they were asked to show immigration papers. This process was challenged in court by four employees and their union, the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, AFL-CIO, who argued that these factory surveys constituted unreasonable searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment and violated the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The District Court ruled in favor of the INS, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that the factory surveys amounted to a seizure of the entire workforces and that individual questioning was only permissible if there was reasonable suspicion that the employee was an illegal alien.
Issue
The primary legal issue is whether the INS’s factory surveys and the questioning of individual employees about their citizenship constituted unreasonable searches or seizures under the Fourth Amendment.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the INS factory surveys did not constitute a seizure of the entire workforce and that the questioning of individual employees about their citizenship by INS agents did not amount to a detention or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Florida v. Bostick
Facts
The Broward County Sheriff’s Department in Florida implemented a program where officers would board buses at scheduled stops and ask passengers for permission to search their luggage as part of drug interdiction efforts. Terrance Bostick was approached by two officers on a bus bound from Miami to Atlanta during a stopover in Fort Lauderdale. Without any specific suspicion, the officers asked Bostick for his ticket and ID, then requested his consent to search his luggage. Bostick consented to the search, which led to the discovery of cocaine. Bostick was charged with trafficking in cocaine. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing it was seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court denied the motion, and Bostick pleaded guilty while reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. The Florida Supreme Court held that Bostick had been seized because a reasonable passenger in his situation would not have felt free to leave the bus to avoid police questioning, and thus, established a per se rule that police practice of boarding buses to conduct drug searches without specific suspicion was unconstitutional.
Issue
Whether a police encounter on a bus, where officers ask a passenger questions and request consent to search their luggage without any specific suspicion, necessarily constitutes a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment.
Holding
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, holding that not every police encounter on a bus constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Reasoning
Florida v. Royer
Facts
On January 3, 1978, at Miami International Airport, Richard Royer was observed by two plainclothes detectives who believed he fit a drug courier profile due to his behavior and manner of handling his luggage. Royer, under the name “Holt,” checked in two suitcases for a flight to New York and paid in cash. After purchasing his ticket, detectives approached him, identified themselves as police officers, and asked for a moment to speak with him. Royer complied, showing them his ticket and driver’s license, which revealed his real name, thus prompting further suspicion. Detectives then informed Royer of their suspicion he was transporting narcotics and without returning his documents, asked him to follow them to a nearby room, which he did without verbal consent. In the room, Royer was asked to consent to a search of his luggage. He opened one suitcase himself, and consented to the opening of the other, which he claimed he did not know the combination to. Marijuana was found in both suitcases, leading to his arrest. Royer later attempted to suppress the evidence, arguing his consent was not voluntary as he was effectively detained without probable cause.
Issue
The central issue is whether Royer was being illegally detained when he consented to the search of his luggage, and if the detention and the subsequent search were constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that Royer was indeed being illegally detained when he consented to the search, rendering his consent involuntary and the evidence obtained through the search inadmissible.
Torres v. Madrid
Facts
On July 15, 2014, New Mexico State Police officers attempted to execute an arrest warrant at an apartment complex, encountering Roxanne Torres in the parking lot. Mistaking the officers for carjackers, Torres attempted to flee in her car. Officers Janice Madrid and Richard Williamson, believing Torres posed a threat, fired 13 shots, hitting her twice. Despite her injuries, Torres managed to drive away, only to be apprehended the following day after seeking medical treatment. Torres sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the shooting constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
Issue
The primary issue before the Court was whether a person is “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment when an officer shoots them, and they temporarily elude capture.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the application of physical force to the body of a person with the intent to restrain, even if unsuccessful in subduing the person, constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
