Opinion ID: 2794598
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Seizure of Vargas and Tabitha

Text: Vargas argues that the District Court erred in finding that neither she nor her daughter was seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs when the government terminates the freedom of an individual through means intentionally applied. Brower v. Cnty. of lnyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596-97 (1989). In other words, “a person is ‘seized’ only when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained.” United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553 (1980). The test for the existence of a “show of authority” is an objective one and, as the Supreme Court stated in California v. Hodari, considers “not whether the citizen perceived that he was being ordered to restrict his movement, but whether the officer’s words and actions would have conveyed that to a reasonable person.” 499 U.S. 621, 628 (1991). A seizure does not occur, however, when the individual does not yield or submit to the officer’s show of 8 The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367, and 1441. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s summary judgment rulings. Lupyan v. Corinthian Colls. Inc., 761 F.3d 314, 317 (3d Cir. 2014). A party is entitled to summary judgment when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). 11 authority. Id. at 626; see also United States v. Smith, 575 F.3d 308, 313 (3d Cir. 2009). The kinds of demonstration of authority that may constitute a seizure include “the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.” United States v. Crandell, 554 F.3d 79, 85 (3d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554). Vargas argues that both she and Tabitha were seized when the officers used their police cruiser to block Diaz’s car from leaving for the hospital, when the officers told Diaz to turn off the engine and instructed the occupants to get out of the car, and then when the officers prevented them from getting back in the car and leaving for the hospital after it was clear that a medical emergency was taking place.9 Vargas 9 As to seizure by physical force, Vargas did not argue below that she was seized when the police officers used their patrol car to block Diaz’s vehicle from leaving for the hospital. Instead, she argued that she was seized when the officers refused to allow her to approach her daughter. She makes passing references to that argument here, but, as the District Court concluded, it fails because the officers did not employ any physical force: they did not physically touch or restrain her and instead simply told her to “move back” away from her daughter and to “calm down.” (App. at 87.) See Hodari, 499 U.S. at 625 (“[The alleged seizure] does not involve the application of any physical force; Hodari was untouched by Officer Pertoso at the time he discarded the cocaine.”). Although the officers’ conduct could have been 12 contends that the officers’ conduct constituted a show of authority to which she submitted, and she contrasts her and Tabitha’s behavior with that of the defendant in Hodari, who fled from police and was thus not seized because of his lack of submission to the officers’ authority. Hodari, 499 U.S. at 626. Vargas emphasizes that she and Tabitha did not flee. Indeed, she says, despite desperately pleading with the officers to allow her to take her daughter to the hospital, she obeyed when they told her to get out of the vehicle and move away from Tabitha. Although the parties devote significant effort to addressing the difficult question of whether a seizure occurred in this case, we need not resolve that issue because, as explained below, even if there were a seizure, the undisputed facts show that any such seizure was reasonable and therefore not a constitutional violation.