Opinion ID: 535568
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Standard of Review on the Seizure Question

Text: 12 We examine the District Court's judgment that the police seized Maragh under a de novo standard of review, as firmly entrenched doctrine in this court and the Supreme Court requires. See, e.g., United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554-55, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 1877-78, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980) (Opinion of Stewart, J.) (describing circumstances in absence of which otherwise inoffensive contact between a member of the public and the police cannot, as a matter of law, amount to a seizure of that person  (emphasis added)). 13 Contrary to the suggestion of our dissenting colleague, we can find no Supreme Court case that has ever held that the seizure inquiry is other than a question of law. Furthermore, the Court has never deferred to the trier of fact regarding the question of seizure. In Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983), by way of one plurality opinion, two concurrences, and two dissents, eight members of the Court adopted Mendenhall 's legal test for seizure. Justice White's plurality opinion applied the test without relying on or deferring to the district court regarding the question of seizure. See id. at 501-02, 103 S.Ct. at 1326-27. Similarly, in Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 108 S.Ct. 1975, 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988), the Court iterated its support for Mendenhall 's objective legal test for seizure. See id. 108 S.Ct. at 1979 (discussing evolution of seizure test from Terry to Mendenhall, and noting that [t]he Court has since embraced [Mendenhall 's] test). As in Royer, the Chesternut Court applied the test without any deference to the district court on the question of seizure. See id. 108 S.Ct. at 1980 (Applying the Court's test to the facts of this case, we conclude that respondent was not seized.... (emphasis added)). 14 Additionally, the soundest of jurisprudential considerations compel appellate courts not to shirk their responsibility independently to apply important constitutional standards. In the Fourth Amendment context, as in the First Amendment setting, appellate judges have a constitutional responsibility that cannot be delegated to the trier of fact. See Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 501, 104 S.Ct. 1949, 1959, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984). It does not matter that Mendenhall requires the courts to consider whether a reasonable person would have felt free to leave in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, 100 S.Ct. at 1877. Although Mendenhall 's seizure test is necessarily imprecise and 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. See Chesternut, 108 S.Ct. at 1979-80 (emphasis added). De novo review helps to ensure consistent application.