Seizures Flashcards
What are the three definitions of a seizure?
- Hodari D: a seizure occurs either when an officer engages in a physical display of authority, consisting of any amount of physical contact, that is objectively intended to restrain a person OR when an officer engages in a non-physical display of authority and the person submits to it.
- Mendenhall: a seizure has occurred if, objectively, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave.
- Bostick: whether a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter.
What is an encounter?
This is when the police come up and talk to someone and the person is free to leave or not talk to them. Aka the opposite of a seizure.
California v. Hodari D. (1991)
Holding: The defendant, who was chased by the police, was not seized when the chase started, but was seized when the police tackled him to the ground.
Rule:
A seizure had occurred if…
1. There was a physical display of authority intended to restrain (physical contact, any touching, no matter how slight, and it does not matter if the suspect does not comply).
2. There was a nonphysical display of authority that the suspect complies with.
Counter-argument: defendant was not free to leave when the police started chasing him by virtue of the fact that he was trying to leave.
*Facts: The police saw defendant with crack. He threw the crack on the ground and ran away. The police tackled him. Defendant claimed that he was seized when the police started chasing him. *
Torres v. Madrid (2021)
Holding: There was a seizure here because a physical display of authority was used when the police gunfire hit defendant in the back. It does not matter that the defendant did not submit to the physical display of authority.
Rule:
1. Submission is only needed in seizures when there is a non-physical display of authority that is objectively intended to restrain a person (as opposed to touching, like a tap on the shoulder, which would not objectively appear to be intended to restrain).
2. Physical displays of authority can include touching with a bullet/weapon/object.
3. A seizure lasts as long as the force lasts.
U.S. v. Mendenhall (1980)
Holding: Defendant was free to leave because the encounter took place in public, the officers were not wearing uniforms and did not have weapons, they requested but did not demand her ticket and ID, they requested but did not demand that she follow them to their office, and they approached her and identified themselves rather than summoning her.
Rule:
Free to leave test: a person has been seized if a reasonable person would not feel free to leave the encounter.
Facts: Drug Enforcement agents suspected defendant of transporting drugs. They were in plain clothes and confronted her at an airport. The name on her license did not match the name on her ticket. The agents asked her to come with them to their airport office and she complied. She consented to let them search her bag. She consented to let them strip search her and they found drugs.
Free to Leave Test and Factors
This objective test was established in Mendenhall. It holds that a person has been seized if a reasonable person would not feel free to leave the encounter. Indicators that a person is not free to leave include:
1. the threatening presence of several officers;
2. the display of a weapon by an officer;
3. some physical touching of the person of the citizen;
4. use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.
INS v. Delgado (1984)
Holding: Defendant was not seized because, even though most people were answering the police’s questions, they were free not to answer. It did not matter that there were officers by the door, because the employees were not going to leave anyway.
Dissent: there is a need to look at the entire context, the police in this case clearly wanted to interrogate people under conditions were they would be likely to get quick answers to their questions.
*Facts: INS agents entered a factory and questioned workers about their citizenship. When the workers did not give satisfactory answers, the police asked for their immigration papers. Some agents were at the exits. *
Florida v. Bostick (1991)
Holding: This was not a seizure because the defendant was free to decline or terminate the encounter. This was a more appropriate test than the free to leave test because of the context of it being on a bus. There are crammed quarters.
Rule: A person has not been seized if they are free to decline or terminate an encounter. The fact that the search produces contraband is not relevant to whether a person felt free to terminate an encounter.
*Facts: Defendant was on a bus when two officers boarded to search people’s luggage. The police questioned the defendant, asked him if they could search his luggage, and advised him that he had the right to refuse. They searched the luggage and found cocaine. *
United States v. Drayton (2002)
Holding: this was not a seizure because the defendant was free to terminate the encounter. It did not matter that his defendant had just been arrested or that all the other passengers were consenting to a search.
Rule: The 4th amendment does not require the police to tell citizens of their rights to terminate an encounter.
*Facts: The defendant was on a bus. Police boarded to search for drugs/weapons. One officer was at the front of the bus, another at the back, a third went down the aisle, standing behind and leaving the aisle clear while questioning them in a low voice about their travel plans and which luggage belonged to them. He did not advise the passengers of their right to decline the search. The officer searched the bag of the defendant’s companion and found no contraband but, given his baggy clothes asked if they could pat him down. They found drugs and arrested him. Then they asked the defendant for a pat down, he also consented and was arrested. *
