California vs Hodari D - case brief PDF

Preview

Summary

case brief...

Description

Andy Chrispen CJS 305.001 California vs. Hodari D. 499 U.S. 621 (1991)

FACTS: In April of 1988, Officers Brian McColgin and Jerry Pertoso were on patrol in Oakland, California. They were in street clothes with jackets that said police on the front and back. They were in an unmarked car, and when they turned a corner they saw several people huddled around a red car. When the youths saw the car they began to flee along with the red car. Pertoso got out of the car and chased Hodari D. and another youth while McGlogin pursued the red car. Hodari eventually ran into Pertoso, and when Hodari saw him he threw what appeared to be a rock away in the distance. He was then tackled by Pertoso and handcuffed. There was a pager and 130 dollars in cash found on him. The “rock” that he threw ended up being crack cocaine. Hodari moved to suppress the evidence. The court denied the motion without opinion. The California Court of Appeal reversed the decision saying that Hodari had been seized when he saw Pertoso running toward him. The cocaine evidence had to be suppressed because it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Certiorari was granted. QUESTION: Can there be a seizure when there is a “show of authority” before the person is actually apprehended? NO OPINION: Scalia, J. joined by Rehnquist, CJ., and Blackmun, J., O’Connor, J., Kennedy, J., and Souter, J. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

To say the pursuing youth the flee in this situation is not right is preposterous Pertoso’s sight of the rock that was thrown would be reason to search as well Do not hold that a seizure occurred even though the subject did not yield Mendenhall vs. U.S.’s show of authority test is an objective one The motion to suppress is denied a. Judgment of the Court of Appeal for California is reversed and remanded.

DISSENT: Stevens J., joined with Marshall, J. 1. The definition of a seizure is inconsistent of past decisions and the Constitution 2. People that are innocent often do flee from places because of the fear of being named guilty when they are not 3. This is limiting the protection of the Fourth Amendment on the people 4. Because the officer was chasing the youth he was in fact not free to leave 5. The time of the seizure is when the officer takes control over the citizen, not when a citizen believes he or she is not free to go 6. This ruling allows people to be secure in their persons, places, papers, and effets against unreasonable searches and seizures only at the officer’s discretion...