Seizures Flashcards
US v. Karo & Radio Beepers
Does the installation of a tracking device into a container, with the permission of the original owner, constitute a seizure within the meaning of the 4th Amendment when the container is delivered to a buyer having no knowledge of the tracking device?
No. The Court found that although the cans of ether may have contained an unknown and unwanted object, no meaningful interference with the defendants’ interest in their possessions occurred, as the tracking device was installed before the defendants obtained the ether. This case was an expansion of the holding announced in United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). (Abstract by Blaine Schmidt.)
The transfer of the container didn’t constituted a seizure; seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interest in the property
Didn’t violate the 4th because the can of ether was an effect of the government
US v. Knotts & Radio Beepers
Does police planting and tracking of a radio transmitter violate the Fourth Amendment?
No. Justice William H. Rehnquist delivered the unanimous opinion. The Court held that the use of the radio transmitter to track the movements of a suspect in a car falls under the privacy expectations for a vehicle, which are less than those of a house. Since the radio transmitter in this case was used primarily to ascertain where the chloroform traveled and where it stopped, the surveillance did not violate Knotts’ right to privacy in his home. Additionally, the use of the radio transmitter did not serve any function that the police could not have performed visually; the transmitter merely made the process easier.
Torres v. Madrid
Seizure of a person occurs through the use of physical force or a show of authority that in some way restrains the liberty of a person; Seizure requires the use of force with the intent to restrain; accidental force will not qualify; The primary issue in the case was whether the officers’ use of force constituted a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, even though the defendant had temporarily eluded capture. The lower courts held that no seizure had occurred, as Torres had not been physically detained or brought under police control. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that a seizure occurs under the Fourth Amendment whenever an officer applies physical force with the intent to restrain a person, even if the person does not submit and is not ultimately detained. In this case, the officers’ use of force with the intent to stop Torres constituted a seizure, even though she was able to temporarily escape.
Torres v. Madrid
Seizure of a person occurs through the use of physical force or a show of authority that in some way restrains the liberty of a person; Seizure requires the use of force with the intent to restrain; accidental force will not qualify; The primary issue in the case was whether the officers’ use of force constituted a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, even though the defendant had temporarily eluded capture. The lower courts held that no seizure had occurred, as Torres had not been physically detained or brought under police control.
The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that a seizure occurs under the Fourth Amendment whenever an officer applies physical force with the intent to restrain a person, even if the person does not submit and is not ultimately detained. In this case, the officers’ use of force with the intent to stop Torres constituted a seizure, even though she was able to temporarily escape.
California v. Hodari D.
In Hodari D., a group of young men, including the defendant Hodari, fled upon seeing police officers approach them. One of the officers chased Hodari, who discarded a small rock while running. The officer eventually tackled Hodari and arrested him. The rock turned out to be crack cocaine, and Hodari was charged with possession. Hodari moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that he had been unlawfully seized without reasonable suspicion when the officer began chasing him, and therefore, the evidence obtained during the chase should be excluded.
The majority opinion, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, held that a seizure requires either physical force or submission to a show of authority. In this case, the defendant had not been subjected to physical force or submitted to the officer’s show of authority when he discarded the cocaine, so there was no seizure at that point. As a result, the evidence was admissible
US v. Mendenhall Principal Test
A person has been seized within the meaning of the 4th only if in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident a reasonable person would have believed that they were not free to leave
The test doesn’t depend on the subjective perceptions of the seized person (US v. Cardoza) → police conduct, viewed in the totality of the circumstances, must objectively communicate that the officer exercising their official authority to restrain the individuals liberty of movement before we can find a seizure occurred
* When a reasonable person feels free to leave then they haven’t been seized, if a reasonable person doesn’t feel free to leave then they would be seized
* When Mendenhall was approached in the airport there wasn’t a seizure; the initial police-citizen contact was outside the scope of the 4th
1 The events took place in the public concourse
2 The agents wore no uniforms and displayed no weapons
3 They did not summon the respondent to their presence, but instead approached her and identified themselves
Florida v. Royer
Under the Fourth Amendment, police officers cannot move a suspect to another location during a Terry stop without a legitimate law enforcement purpose, such as ensuring the safety and security of the officers and the suspect. Ensuring the safety and security of officers and bystanders might be a legitimate reason to move a suspect. Officers are not barred from approaching a person and asking questions, so long as the person is free to leave. The Fourth Amendment is only implicated if there has been a detention.
INS v. Delgado—Factory Sweeps
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that no seizure had occurred during the factory survey. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Byron White, determined that the workers had not been seized because they were not subjected to physical force or a show of authority that would lead a reasonable person to believe they were not free to leave. The Court also found that merely asking questions, even in a coercive environment, does not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment; If a person wouldn’t have left the area regardless of the police presence then they weren’t seized because the “show of authority” isn’t necessarily a seizure
Florida v. Bostick—Bus Sweeps
The proper inquiry → whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers request or otherwise terminate the encounter
a seizure does not occur simply because a police officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions
“Consensual encounters” demand no inquiry into the reasonableness of the officer’s justification for engaging the individual, because the Fourth Amendment is not at all implicated.
US v. Drayton
When they reached the defendants, Drayton and Brown, the officers asked if they could search their bags and their persons. The defendants gave their consent, and the officers discovered illegal drugs on both of them. Drayton and Brown were subsequently charged with federal drug offenses. They moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that their consent to the search was not given voluntarily, as they were not informed of their right to refuse consent. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that the officers were not required to inform the defendants of their right to refuse consent to the search. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, concluded that the officers’ conduct was not coercive and that a reasonable person would have felt free to decline the officers’ requests or otherwise terminate the encounter. The Court found that the consent given by Drayton and Brown was voluntary, and therefore, the search was permissible under the Fourth Amendment.
