Fourth Amendment Seizure of Persons

The Fourth Amendment forbids the arrest or detention of a person without a warrant or probable cause. However, the Supreme Court has spent many decades determining what it means to be “detained” and when such action is unreasonable.

What the Fourth Amendment Says

The Fourth Amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

For most people, the Fourth Amendment’s text brings to mind the illegal search and seizure of a person’s property. However, the Fourth Amendment also applies to the person themselves. In this context, an "unreasonable seizure" is any government action that illegally restrains freedom of movement.

The Fourth Amendment demands that any seizure be reasonable. It typically requires a warrant supported by probable cause.

Probable cause limits law enforcement's power to arrest or detain individuals. Officers must have a reasonable basis to believe that a person has committed a crime before they can lawfully detain them. The Supreme Court has provided clarification on the application of probable cause through various rulings.

Evidence of a crime is crucial in establishing probable cause, which is necessary for a seizure to be lawful under the Fourth Amendment. Law enforcement officers must have a reasonable belief, supported by evidence, to believe that a person has committed a crime to justify an arrest or detention. Without sufficient evidence, any seizure could be deemed unreasonable and unconstitutional.

However, the Fourth Amendment only applies to unlawful searches and seizures by the government. Indeed, if a private investigator, curious neighbor, or doubtful partner searches for your property, the Fourth Amendment does not govern their actions.

Is a Warrantless Arrest an Unreasonable Seizure?

It can be. The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures applies to persons and property. The courts have viewed unlawful arrests as unreasonable seizures. However, the key thing to remember is that law enforcement can arrest without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed. 

The Supreme Court has long interpreted the Fourth Amendment’s phrase “the right of the people to be secure in their persons” as a protection against arbitrary arrests. So, an arrest without a warrant or probable cause is seen as an “unreasonable seizure” of one’s person under the Fourth Amendment.

However, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as:

• Exigent circumstances

• Searches with consent

• Searches incident to a lawful arrest

These exceptions allow for warrantless searches and seizures when obtaining a warrant is impractical or unnecessary.

Below, we discuss essential Supreme Court cases on the seizure of persons. These decisions helped define and refine what an arrest or detention means to be unreasonable.

Supreme Court Cases on Seizures and Arrests

The following Supreme Court decisions significantly impacted criminal law. In each, the Court had to determine the scope and limits of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizures.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

In Terry v. Ohio, a plainclothes officer observed John W. Terry and two other men acting suspiciously. The men were taking turns walking back and forth along an identical route, pausing to look into a store window repeatedly.

The officer suspected that they were planning a robbery. He approached the men, identified himself as a police officer, and patted down the exterior of their clothing. He discovered weapons on Terry and one of the other men, Chilton. Both were charged with carrying concealed weapons.

The Supreme Court considered whether the Fourth Amendment applies to police stop-and-frisk actions when there is no probable cause for arrest. The Court ruled that it does.

However, if an officer observes unusual conduct that leads them to suspect criminal activity reasonably and that the persons involved may be armed and presently dangerous, they may conduct a limited search (a "pat-down" or "frisk") for weapons without violating the Fourth Amendment.

The Court introduced a balancing test to evaluate the reasonableness of the warrantless search. It weighed the need for the search against the invasion of privacy it entails. The Court acknowledged the officer's need to protect himself and others nearby by ensuring the suspect was not armed. The intrusion on the suspect by a pat-down search for weapons is minor compared to the interest in officer safety.

The ruling in Terry v. Ohio established that police officers can stop and frisk suspects on the street without a warrant. But only if they reasonably suspect that the person may be involved in criminal activity and may be armed and dangerous.

This is a lower standard than probable cause, which is required for an arrest.

California v. Hodari D. (1991)

Late one evening, two police officers in an unmarked car approached a group of youths, including Hodari D., who fled upon seeing the officers. Officer Pertoso chased Hodari on foot. During the chase, Hodari threw away what appeared to be a small rock, which was later identified as crack cocaine. Hodari was tackled by Pertoso shortly thereafter and taken into custody.

Hodari sought to suppress the evidence of the discarded cocaine. He argued that it was obtained through an unlawful seizure, as he was seized without reasonable suspicion when he dropped the cocaine.

Was Hodari D. "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment at the time he discarded the cocaine? Indeed, evidence would be considered inadmissible if it were acquired as a result of an unlawful seizure.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided that Hodari D. was not "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment at the time he discarded the cocaine. Therefore, the evidence was admissible and not obtained through an unlawful seizure.

The Supreme Court held that a seizure does not occur until a suspect:

• Is physically apprehended, or

• Submits to a show of authority by law enforcement

The Court clarified that mere pursuit by police does not constitute a seizure. For a seizure to occur, there must be either physical force or a submission to an assertion of authority. Since Hodari did not submit and was not physically restrained until after he discarded the cocaine, no seizure had taken place at the critical moment.

The ruling has significant implications for the admissibility of evidence discarded in the course of police pursuits. It highlights the critical nature of the exact moment at which a seizure is deemed to have occurred in assessing the legality of police conduct.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

In this case, police received a tip that a suspect in a bombing case might be hiding in Dollree Mapp's house. The tip also stated that the house might have illegal betting equipment. When Mapp refused to let them in without a warrant, the officers forced entry into her home. They presented a paper they claimed was a search warrant, which was never produced at trial. During their search, the police found obscene materials. This led to Mapp's conviction under Ohio law.

The Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule, which prevents illegally obtained evidence from being used in federal court, also applies to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause.

The Court reasoned that the right to privacy, free from unreasonable searches and seizures, would be meaningless without the exclusionary rule to deter police misconduct and protect citizens' constitutional rights.

By applying the exclusionary rule to the states, the Court ensured that evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures would be inadmissible in state courts, just as in federal courts. Evidence obtained in an illegal search is often called the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

Maryland v. King (2013)

Alonzo King Jr. was arrested in Maryland on assault charges in a criminal case. A DNA sample was collected from King using a cheek swab as part of the standard booking procedure for serious offenses.

The DNA sample matched evidence from an unsolved rape case. This led to King being charged and convicted for that crime. King challenged the DNA collection, arguing that it violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

The question before the Supreme Court was: Does the collection and analysis of a DNA sample from an arrestee, without a warrant and without individualized suspicion, violate the Fourth Amendment?

The Supreme Court affirmed that the routine collection and analysis of DNA from arrestees for serious offenses is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. It does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court held that the state's interest in identifying arrestees and solving crimes outweighs the arrestee's limited expectation of privacy. The Court likened DNA collection to fingerprinting and photographing, other standard identification practices. The Court emphasized that DNA collection serves legitimate governmental interests, including:

• Accurately identifying arrestees

• Solving past and future crimes

• Exonerating innocent suspects

The Court also noted that the intrusion of a cheek swab is minimal and reasonable in light of the significant benefits to public safety. Consequently, the procedure was deemed a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

This decision has led to broader use of DNA databases and has significantly impacted the criminal justice system. It allows law enforcement to connect arrestees to unsolved crimes while protecting public safety.

United States v. Drayton (2002)

During a routine drug and weapons interdiction effort, three police officers boarded a bus. The officers were dressed in plain clothes but wore visible badges and weapons. They began questioning passengers. However, they did not inform them of their right to refuse cooperation or leave. Officers approached Christopher Drayton and Clifton Brown, who were seated together. The officers asked for their consent to search their luggage and persons. Both men consented.

Drayton, who was found in possession of drugs, was arrested and later sought to suppress the evidence. He contended that the search and seizure were unconstitutional as he had not been informed of his right to refuse consent.

The issue here was whether police officers must inform bus passengers of their right not to cooperate and to refuse consent to searches. The Supreme Court held that police officers are not required to inform bus passengers of their right to refuse cooperation during consensual encounters.

The Court reasoned that the voluntariness of consent to search is determined by the totality of the circumstances. In this case, the Court found no evidence of coercion or intimidation. The presence of officers and their conduct, including their tone and demeanor, were not deemed coercive. The Court emphasized that the test for voluntariness is whether a reasonable person would:

• Feel free to decline the officers' requests, or

• Terminate the encounter

In Drayton’s case, the Court concluded that a reasonable person would have felt free to refuse the officers' requests.

Florida v. Bostick (1991)

Terrance Bostick was a passenger on a Greyhound bus traveling from Miami to Atlanta. During a stop in Fort Lauderdale, two uniformed and armed police officers boarded the bus as part of a routine drug interdiction effort. They approached Bostick and asked for his identification and ticket.

They asked for his consent to search his luggage without informing him of his right to refuse. Bostick gave his consent, and subsequently, the officers discovered cocaine in his luggage. Arrested on charges of drug trafficking, Bostick attempted to suppress the evidence. He argued that the encounter was a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, asserting that he did not feel free to leave or refuse the search.

The Supreme Court held that a seizure does not occur if a reasonable person feels free to decline the officer's requests or terminate the encounter.

The Court emphasized that the proper inquiry is whether, considering all the circumstances surrounding the encounter, a reasonable passenger would feel free to decline the officers' requests or leave the scene. The Court rejected the Florida Supreme Court's per se rule that such encounters on buses are inherently coercive.

Instead, the Court held that each case must be analyzed based on its own facts. The Court remanded the case to the Florida courts to determine whether Bostick's consent to the search was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.

Brendlin v. California (2007)

Bruce Brendlin, a passenger in a vehicle operated by Karen Simeroth, was subject to a police stop for a traffic infraction. During the stop, officers identified Brendlin and found he had an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Following his arrest, authorities discovered drug paraphernalia on him and within the vehicle. Brendlin sought to suppress this evidence, contending that the traffic stop was illegal and that his seizure as a passenger breached the Fourth Amendment.

The issue here was whether a passenger in a car stopped by police is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and thus can challenge the constitutionality of the stop. The Supreme Court ruled that passengers are seized during a traffic stop and thus have the standing to challenge the constitutionality of the stop.

The Court reasoned that a reasonable passenger in a car would not feel free to terminate their encounter with the police and leave the scene during a traffic stop. Therefore, passengers are considered seized under the Fourth Amendment.

The Court has determined that the Fourth Amendment's safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures apply to all occupants within a vehicle, not solely the driver. The decision emphasizes that the legality of the stop affects everyone in the vehicle. Therefore, passengers have the standing to challenge the stop's constitutionality.

Michigan v. Chesternut (1988)

Police officers were patrolling in a marked car when they observed respondent Chesternut run away upon seeing the police car. The officers followed Chesternut in their car, observing his actions. During the pursuit, Chesternut discarded several packets. The officers recovered the items and determined they were contraband. Chestnut was taken into custody and faced charges of possessing controlled substances. He sought to suppress the evidence, contending that his seizure lacked reasonable suspicion and was unconstitutional.

The issue was whether police pursuit constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court determined that police pursuit alone is not necessarily a seizure. A seizure requires physical force or submission to authority.

The Court determined that interactions between law enforcement officers and citizens do not always constitute a seizure. In the instance of Chesternut, the Court concluded that the police's actions did not equate to a seizure. The police did not use physical force or display authority in a way that would have caused a reasonable person to believe they were not free to do their business. Therefore, Chesternut was not seized when he discarded the packets, and the evidence was admissible.

Katz v. United States (1967)

In this case, Charles Katz was suspected of illegal gambling activities. FBI agents placed an electronic listening device outside a public phone booth that Katz used to transmit information. The FBI recorded Katz's conversations without a warrant, leading to his conviction. Katz challenged the conviction. He argued that the recordings violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Supreme Court had to decide whether electronic eavesdropping in a public place constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. A search occurs when a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy is violated.

The Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects individuals' privacy, regardless of the location. It introduced the two-prong test to determine whether a Fourth Amendment violation has occurred:

• Whether the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy, and

• Whether the expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable

Katz had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone booth. The FBI's electronic surveillance without a warrant violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The Court rejected the notion that the Fourth Amendment's applicability was limited to physical intrusions.

This case established the foundation for privacy rights in the context of modern technology and continues to influence rulings on surveillance and privacy issues.