California v. Hodari, 89-1632
Decision Date | 23 April 1991 |
Docket Number | No. 89-1632,89-1632 |
Parties | CALIFORNIA, Petitioner v. HODARI D |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
A group of youths, including respondent Hodari D., fled at the approach of an unmarked police car on an Oakland, California, street. Officer Pertoso, who was wearing a jacket with "Police" embossed on its front, left the car to give chase. Pertoso did not follow Hodari directly, but took a circuitous route that brought the two face to face on a parallel street. Hodari, however, was looking behind as he ran and did not turn to see Pertoso until the officer was almost upon him, whereupon Hodari tossed away a small rock. Pertoso tackled him, and the police recovered the rock, which proved to be crack cocaine. In the juvenile proceeding against Hodari, the court denied his motion to suppress the evidence relating to the cocaine. The State Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Hodari had been "seized" when he saw Pertoso running towards him; that this seizure was "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment, the State having conceded that Pertoso did not have the "reasonable suspicion" required to justify stopping Hodari; and therefore that the evidence of cocaine had to be suppressed as the fruit of the illegal seizure.
Held: The only issue presented here—whether, at the time he dropped the drugs, Hodari had been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment—must be answered in the negative. To answer this question, this Court looks to the common law of arrest. To constitute a seizure of the person, just as to constitute an arrest—the quintessential "seizure of the person" under Fourth Amendment jurisprudence—there must be either the application of physical force, however slight, or, where that is absent, submission to an officer's "show of authority" to restrain the subject's liberty. No physical force was applied in this case, since Hodari was untouched by Pertoso before he dropped the drugs. Moreover, assuming that Pertoso's pursuit constituted a "show of authority" enjoining Hodari to halt, Hodari did not comply with that injunction and therefore was not seized until he was tackled. Thus, the cocaine abandoned while he was running was not the fruit of a seizure, cf. Brower v. Inyo County, 489 U.S. 593, 597, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 1381, 103 L.Ed.2d 628; Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 58, 44 S.Ct. 445, 446, 68 L.Ed. 898, and his motion to exclude evidence of it was properly denied. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 1877, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (opinion of Stewart, J.), and its progeny, distinguished. Pp. 623-629.
Reversed and remanded.
Ronald E. Niver, San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.
Clifford M. Sloan, for U.S. as amicus curiae, Washington, D.C., in support of petitioner, by special leave of Court.
James L. Lozenski, Berkeley, Cal., for respondent.
Late one evening in April 1988, Officers Brian McColgin and Jerry Pertoso were on patrol in a high-crime area of Oakland, California. They were dressed in street clothes but wearing jackets with "Police" embossed on both front and back. Their unmarked car proceeded west on Foothill Boulevard, and turned south onto 63rd Avenue. As they rounded the corner, they saw four or five youths huddled around a small red car parked at the curb. When the youths saw the officers' car approaching they apparently panicked, and took flight. The respondent here, Hodari D., and one companion ran west through an alley; the others fled south. The red car also headed south, at a high rate of speed.
The officers were suspicious and gave chase. McColgin remained in the car and continued south on 63rd Avenue; Pertoso left the car, ran back north along 63rd, then west on Foothill Boulevard, and turned south on 62nd Avenue. Hodari, meanwhile, emerged from the alley onto 62nd and ran north. Looking behind as he ran, he did not turn and see Pertoso until the officer was almost upon him, whereupon he tossed away what appeared to be a small rock. A moment later, Pertoso tackled Hodari, handcuffed him, and radioed for assistance. Hodari was found to be carrying $130 in cash and a pager; and the rock he had discarded was found to be crack cocaine.
In the juvenile proceeding brought against him, Hodari moved to suppress the evidence relating to the cocaine. The court denied the motion without opinion. The California Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Hodari had been "seized" when he saw Officer Pertoso running towards him, that this seizure was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and that the evidence of cocaine had to be suppressed as the fruit of that illegal seizure. The California Supreme Court denied the State's application for review. We granted certiorari. 498 U.S. 807, 111 S.Ct. 38, 112 L.Ed.2d 15 (1990).
As this case comes to us, the only issue presented is whether, at the time he dropped the drugs, Hodari had been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.1 If so, respondent argues, the drugs were the fruit of that seizure and the evidence concerning them was properly excluded. If not, the drugs were abandoned by Hodari and lawfully recovered by the police, and the evidence should have been admitted.
We have long understood that the Fourth Amendment's protection against "unreasonable . . . seizures" includes seizure of the person, see Henry v. United States, 361 U.S. 98, 100, 80 S.Ct. 168, 170, 4 L.Ed.2d 134 (1959). From the time of the founding to the present, the word "seizure" has meant a "taking possession," 2 N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language 67 (1828); 2 J. Bouvier, A Law Dictionary 510 (6th ed. 1856); Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2057 (1981). For most purposes at common law, the word connoted not merely grasping, or applying physical force to, the animate or inanimate object in question, but actually bringing it within physical control. A ship still fleeing, even though under attack, would not be considered to have been seized as a war prize. Cf. The Josefa Segunda, 10 Wheat. 312, 325-326, 6 L.Ed. 320 (1825). A res capable of manual delivery was not seized until "tak[en] into custody." Pelham v. Rose, 9 Wall. 103, 106, 19 L.Ed. 602 (1870). To constitute an arrest, however—the quintessential "seizure of the person" under our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence—the mere grasping or application of physical force with lawful authority, whether or not it succeeded in subduing the arrestee, was sufficient. See, e.g., Whitehead v. Keyes, 85 Mass. 495, 501 (1862) (); 1 Restatement of Torts § 41, Comment h (1934). As one commentator has described it:
A. Cornelius, Search and Seizure 163-164 (2d ed. 1930) (footnote omitted).
To say that an arrest is effected by the slightest application of physical force, despite the arrestee's escape, is not to say that for Fourth Amendment purposes there is a continuing arrest during the period of fugitivity. If, for example, Pertoso had laid his hands upon Hodari to arrest him, but Hodari had broken away and had then cast away the cocaine, it would hardly be realistic to say that that disclosure had been made during the course of an arrest. Cf. Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457, 471, 21 L.Ed. 897 (1874) (). The present case, however, is even one step further removed. It does not involve the application of any physical force; Hodari was untouched by Officer Pertoso at the time he discarded the cocaine. His defense relies instead upon the proposition 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." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19, n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879, n. 16, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) (emphasis added). Hodari contends (and we accept as true for purposes of this decision) that Pertoso's pursuit qualified as a "show of au thority" calling upon Hodari to halt. The narrow question before us is whether, with respect to a show of authority as with respect to application of physical force, a seizure occurs even though the subject does not yield. We hold that it does not.
The language of the Fourth Amendment, of course, cannot sustain respondent's contention. The word "seizure" readily bears the meaning of a laying on of hands or application of physical force to restrain movement, even when it is ultimately unsuccessful. ("She seized the purse-snatcher, but he broke out of her grasp.") It does not remotely apply, however, to the prospect of a policeman yelling "Stop, in the name of the law!" at a fleeing form that continues to flee. That is no seizure.2 Nor can the result respondent wishes to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
White v. Town of Chapel Hill
...... California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626-29, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 1550-52, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991). According to ......
-
People v. Linn
......A145052 Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California. Filed October 8, 2015 Gary Lieberstein, District Attorney, Pooja Kumar and Bradley Morrow, Deputy ...Cartwright (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1362, 1367, 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 788, citing California v. Hodari D. (1991) 499 U.S. 621, 626, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 ; Brower v. Inyo County (1989) 489 ......
-
Reyes v. City of Fresno
......CASE NO. CV F 13-0418 LJO SKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Dated: May 15, 2013 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' F.R.Civ.P. 12 MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 14) PRELIMINARY ...Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626, 111 S.Ct. 1547 (1991)). Mr. and Ms. Reyes fail to ......
-
People v. Nash, A123128 (Cal. App. 12/18/2009)
......v. . MARIKO M. NASH, Defendant and Appellant. . A123128 . Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division One . December 18, 2009 . Appeal from the ...The present case is unequivocally governed by the decision in California v. Hodari D. (1991) 499 U.S. 621, 626 ( Hodari ), where the United States Supreme Court articulated the rule ......
-
Probable cause and reasonable suspicion: arrests, seizures, stops and frisks
...a police officer approaches an individual, identifies himself, and asks questions concerning criminal activity. California v. Hodari D ., 499 U.S. 621 (1991). Numerous courts have held PROBABLE CAUSE, REA SONABLE SUSPICION 5-17 Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion: Arrests, Seizures, Sto......
-
Arrests
...only when he has been restrained by means of physical force or when he has submitted to a show of authority. California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991); Medford v. State, 13 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In determining whether a private citizen’s actions......
-
Arrests
...only when he has been restrained by means of physical force or when he has submitted to a show of authority. California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991); Medford v. State, 13 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In determining whether a private citizen’s actions......
-
Arrests
...only when he has been restrained by means of physical force or when he has submitted to a show of authority. California v. Hodari, 499 U.S. 621, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991); Medford v. State, 13 S.W.3d 769 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In determining whether a private citizen’s actions......