California v. Hodari D.

Supreme Court of the United States
499 U.S. 621 (1991)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A seizure of a person under the Fourth Amendment occurs only when there is an application of physical force by an officer, however slight, or when an individual submits to an officer's show of authority. A show of authority without submission is not a seizure.

Facts:

In a high-crime area of Oakland, California, plainclothes officers McColgin and Pertoso were on patrol in an unmarked car, wearing jackets with 'Police' markings.
The officers observed a group of youths, including Hodari D., huddled around a parked car.
Upon seeing the officers' car approach, the youths panicked and fled in various directions.
Officer Pertoso left the car and chased Hodari D. on foot.
As Pertoso was about to catch him, Hodari D. saw the officer and tossed away a small object that appeared to be a rock.
Immediately after Hodari D. discarded the rock, Officer Pertoso tackled and handcuffed him.
The discarded rock was recovered and identified as crack cocaine.

Procedural Posture:

In a juvenile proceeding in California state court, Hodari D. filed a motion to suppress the cocaine evidence.
The juvenile court (the court of first instance) denied the motion.
Hodari D. (appellant) appealed to the California Court of Appeal (an intermediate appellate court).
The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court's decision, holding that Hodari D. was illegally seized when the officer began the chase.
The State of California's (appellee's) application for review was denied by the California Supreme Court (the state's highest court).
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the California Court of Appeal.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a 'seizure' under the Fourth Amendment occur when a suspect, who is not physically touched by the police, flees after an officer makes a show of authority commanding the suspect to halt?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Scalia

No. A seizure does not occur if the subject does not yield to a show of authority. For a seizure of a person to occur under the Fourth Amendment, there must be either the application of physical force, however slight, or submission to an officer's assertion of authority. The court reasoned that the common law definition of arrest informs the meaning of a 'seizure' of the person. An arrest requires either physical touching or the suspect's submission. A police officer yelling 'Stop!' at a fleeing person who does not stop is not a seizure. The court clarified that the 'reasonable person' test from United States v. Mendenhall, which asks if a person would feel free to leave, establishes a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for a seizure based on a show of authority. Since Hodari D. did not comply with Officer Pertoso's show of authority (the pursuit) and continued to flee, he was not seized until the moment he was tackled. Therefore, the crack cocaine he discarded before being tackled was abandoned property and not the fruit of an unlawful seizure.

Dissenting - Justice Stevens

Yes. A seizure occurs at the moment a reasonable person, in view of an officer's show of force, would not feel free to leave. The majority's rigid reliance on the common-law definition of arrest is a departure from modern Fourth Amendment precedent like Katz v. United States and Terry v. Ohio, which expanded the concept of a seizure beyond formal arrests. The correct standard, established in Terry and Mendenhall, is that a seizure occurs 'when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.' The majority's new rule, requiring submission, illogically makes the constitutionality of an officer's conduct dependent on the citizen's reaction, rather than on the officer's actions at the time they occur. This undermines the deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule by encouraging police to engage in unlawful pursuits, hoping a suspect will abandon incriminating evidence before being physically caught.

Analysis:

This decision significantly narrows the definition of a Fourth Amendment 'seizure' in the context of police pursuits. By creating a bright-line rule that requires either physical contact or submission to authority, the Court made it clear that a fleeing suspect's rights are not implicated until they are physically apprehended. This holding means that any contraband discarded by a suspect during a chase, prior to capture, is considered abandoned property and is admissible in court, even if the initial pursuit by the police lacked reasonable suspicion. The ruling gives law enforcement greater latitude during street encounters, as their actions do not constitute a seizure until the moment of capture, thus delaying the point at which Fourth Amendment scrutiny applies.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: California v. Hodari D. (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"