Document: 486 U.S. 567 108 S.Ct. 1975 100 L.Ed.2d 565 MICHIGAN, Petitionerv.Michael Mose CHESTERNUT. No. 86-1824. Argued Feb. 24, 1988. Decided June 13, Syllabus Observing the approach of a police car on routine patrol, respondent began to run. The followed him "to see where he was going," and, after catching up with and driving alongside for short distance, observed discarding number packets. Surmising that pills subsequently discovered in packets contained codeine, arrested search his person revealed other drugs hypodermic needle, charged possession controlled substances violation Michigan law. At preliminary hearing, Magistrate dismissed charges ground had been unlawfully seized during pursuit preceding disposal trial court upheld dismissal, Court Appeals affirmed. Applying state precedents interpreting Fourth Amendment Federal Constitution, latter ruled any "investigatory pursuit" amounts seizure under Terry v. Ohio, 392 1, 88 1868, 20 889, since defendant's freedom is restricted as soon officers begin their pursuit. also concluded respondent's flight from insufficient, by itself, give rise particularized suspicion necessary justify this kind seizure. Held: officers' did not constitute "seizure" implicating protections. Thus, against were improperly dismissed. Pp. 572-576. (a) No bright-line rule applicable all investigatory pursuits can be fashioned. Rather, appropriate test whether reasonable man, viewing particular conduct whole within setting surrounding circumstances, would have some way restrained liberty so free leave. 572-574. (b) Under test, "seized" before discarded drug One officer's characterization "chase," standing alone, insufficient implicate Amendment, conduct—which consisted brief acceleration catch respondent, drive him—would communicated an attempt capture or otherwise intrude movement. record does reflect activated siren flashers; commanded halt displayed weapons; operated aggressively block course control direction speed. intimidating could reasonably believed disregard presence go about business. therefore required objective basis suspecting criminal activity, order pursue him. 574-576. 157 Mich.App. 181, 403 N.W.2d 74, reversed remanded. BLACKMUN, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. KENNEDY, filed concurring opinion, which SCALIA, joined, post, p. ----. Andrea L. Solak, Detroit, Mich., petitioner. Carole M. Stanyar, respondent. Justice BLACKMUN 1 In case we review determination undertaken necessarily constitutes Constitution. We conclude amount seizure, it at ignore 2 * Early afternoon December 19, 1984, four riding marked cruiser engaged patrol duties Metropolitan Detroit. As came intersection, one pull over curb. A man got out approached Michael Chesternut, who alone corner. When saw nearing corner stood, turned Officer Peltier, those car, later testified, around going." App. 25. quickly caught drove distance. they beside him, discard pulled right-hand pocket. Peltier examine He pills. While inspection, run only few paces farther, stopped. experience paramedic narcotics took station house. During ensuing search, hatband another packet pills, containing heroin, needle. Respondent knowingly intentionally possessing tablets diazapam, Mich.Comp.Laws § 333.7403(2) (1980). 3 witness, moved dismiss presiding granted motion complaint.1 Relying People Terrell, 77 676, 259 187 (1977),2 bench "chase" like involved implicated protections justified mere fact suspect ran sight police. 31-35. clearly-erroneous standard Magistrate's ruling, dismissal order. Id., 2-10. 4 "reluctantly" affirmed, 184, 76 (1986), noting "although find result unfortunate, cannot say lower court's ruling clearly erroneous present law facts presented." 183, N.W. 2d, 75. Like courts below it, rested its Amendment.3 determined, first, 889 (1968). "As pursuit," explained, "defendant's restricted." Mich.App., N.W.2d, went Because "the [respondent] do absolutely nothing illegal nor observe suspicious activity," determined violated Amendment's prohibition unreasonable seizures. 76. 5 After Supreme denied petitioner leave appeal,4 Pet. Cert. 9a, sought here. writ certiorari, 484 895, 226, 98 185 (1987), consider constituted protections, if so, act fleeing, sufficient justifying need reach second question. II A. 6 Petitioner argues never until individual stops response police's show authority. us lack poison conduct, no matter how coercive, long succeed actually apprehending individual. contends, sharp contrast, "chases" are may absent activity. 7 Both seems us, attempts fashion pursuits, failed heed Court's clear assessment must take into account " 'all circumstances incident' each case. INS Delgado, 466 210, 215, 104 1758, 1762, 80 247 (1984), quoting United States Mendenhall, 446 544, 554, 1870, 1877, 64 497 (1980) (opinion Stewart, J.). Rather than adopting either proposed parties determining adhere our traditional contextual approach, determine that, case, question B noted: 8 "Obviously, personal intercourse between policemen citizens involves 'seizures' persons. Only when officer, means physical force authority, has citizen 'seizure' occurred." U.S., n. 16, S.Ct., 1879, 16. 9 decade writing himself then JUSTICE REHNQUIST, first transposed analysis applied "a 'seized' meaning Amendment." 1877.5 provides said "only if, view incident, leave." Ibid. embraced test. See 1762. Florida Royer, 460 491, 502, 103 1319, 1326-27, 75 229 (1983) (plurality opinion); id., 514 (BLACKMUN, dissenting). 10 imprecise, because designed assess coercive effect taken whole, rather focus details isolation. Moreover, what restraint prompting "leave" will vary, issue, but occurs. Compare supra (considering request identification ticket stopped upon seizure), "factory survey" conducted while employees continued move entire work force). 11 flexible enough range equally broad settings, calls consistent application encounter next, regardless individual's actions test's standard—looking man's interpretation allows advance contemplated Amendment. W. LaFave, Search Seizure 9.2(h), pp. 407-408 (2d ed. 1987 Supp.1988). This "reasonable person" ensures scope protection vary mind being approached. C 12 substance. Although referred originally complaint impressed description,6 enough, Contrary assertion chase communicates detention intended imminent, Brief 9, here movement.7 halt, aggressive manner speed Tr. Oral Arg. 2, 11, 20.8 very parallel running pedestrian somewhat intimidating, not, seizure.9 Cf. Knotts, 276, 1081, 55 (holding continuous surveillance public thoroughfares visual observation electronic "beeper" seizure); 497, 1323-24 opinion) (noting enforcement officers, identified such, seizure). Without more, here—a him—was "so intimidating" 216, 1762-63. Cortez, 449 411, 417-418, 101 690, 694-695, 66 621 (1981). III 13 initial pursuit, Accordingly, reverse judgment Appeals, remand further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 14 It ordered. 15 whom SCALIA joins, concurring. 16 bold step conclude, does, evidence should admitted, unprovoked gave ample cause stop instead concentrates significance chase; fair interpret finding more absence improper conduct. well add barring inquire hot issue here, neither "investigative included lexicon 17 occurs remains officials believes, toward go. See, e.g., (1984); presented opportunity even unmistakable authority elude apprehension discloses contraband incriminating ultimately detained. least plausible belief intend apprehend such achieves restraining effect. foreclose holding, I concur. independently codeine lawfully seized, established probable arrest. limited including officer unmarked "gave chase" foot allegedly observing defendant stick hand pocket officer. 678, 188. According apartment building drop envelope brown powdery Having package might contain defendant. pretrial suppress contents. unjustified 679-680, 188-189. holding supra, Shabaz, 424 Mich. 42, 378 451 (1985), cert. dism'd (in death), 478 1017, 106 3326, 92 733 both quoted "Michigan's analogous [constitutional] provision," without elaboration, footnote following recitation 52, 4, 455, 4. suggest Constitution's provision provided independent source relief, expressly federal cases. Similarly, stated suppression "was soundly based existing law, Federal," made right defined "by general proscription searches seizures." 679, 188, citing 20, light bases courts' decisions Shabaz readily decision likewise rests Constitution adequate ground. Long, 463 1032, 3469, 1201 (1983). defense concedes this. 38-39. Two justices appeal. 10a. Three Justices, majority, chose 560, 1880 part judgment). interrupted State's attorney, asserting simply performing patrolling duties, following: "That fine chasing agree you. My ears picked you know. around. asked why wanted 29-30. goal Of course, subjective intent relevant implications extent conveyed confronted. 6, 407 Supp.1988) (uncommunicated irrelevant occurred). identical Terrell relied foot, abandoned inculpatory evidence. 188; 47-48, 453. State appears stipulated chase, whose object defendant, 455. similar stipulation entered clear. We, intimate constitutional correctness state-court States, submitted amicus curiae, suggests "will outset early point command indicate go." Amicus Curiae 13. day

Category: 0