Opinion ID: 1924629
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutional Seizure Protections

Text: In this appeal, Ross asserts that the trial judge erred in ruling that Ross was not seized until Officer Brown said stop and simultaneously grabbed his right hand. To support that argument, Ross cites Jones v. State for the proposition that a seizure has taken place, pursuant to Article I § 6 of the Delaware Constitution, when a reasonable person would have believed that he is not free to ignore the police presence. [4] Ross contends that a seizure occurred when the police officers exited the vehicle and started following him while asking to speak with him, because at that time, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to ignore the police presence. This Court has previously addressed the protections against unreasonable searches and seizures that are afforded by both the Delaware Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. We recently reviewed and contrasted those protections in Flonnory v. State : The right of individuals to be free from unlawful searches and seizures is secured in Delaware by both the guarantee of an individual's right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures and the nearly identical language of Article I, Section 6 of the Delaware Constitution. We have held that the Delaware Constitution provides a greater protection for the individual than the United States Constitution in the determination of whether a seizure by the State has occurred. In Terry, the United States Supreme Court held that a seizure occurs when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of an individual. That Court clarified this standard in Michigan v. Chesternut when it declared that a seizure occurs whenever the conduct of a police officer would communicate to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business. Although the United States Supreme Court carved a significant exception to Chesternut in California v. Hodari D., [5] we determined in Jones v. State that Article I, Section 6 of Delaware Constitution offered greater protection than the Fourth Amendment, requiring the Delaware courts to continue to apply a standard similar to that set forth in Chesternut. [6] In Michigan v. Chesternut , [7] the United States Supreme Court elaborated upon the reasonable person standard that was first adopted in Terry v. Ohio [8] : While the test is flexible enough to be applied to the whole range of police conduct in an equally broad range of settings, it calls for consistent application from one police encounter to the next, regardless of the particular individual's response to the actions of the police. The test's objective standard-looking to the reasonable man's interpretation of the conduct in question-allows the police to determine in advance whether the conduct contemplated will implicate the Fourth Amendment. This reasonable person standard also ensures that the scope of Fourth Amendment protection does not vary with the state of mind of the particular individual being approached. [9] Both Ross and the State agree that the issue raised in this appeal are controlled by this Court's interpretation of Delaware Constitution Article I, § 6 in Jones v. State . [10]