Citation network
Florida Vs. Bostick
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 20, 1991
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 429 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court Florida v. BostickSearch
-
U.S. 429 (1991) Florida v. BostickSearch
-
Pp. 501 U. S. 433 -437. (a) A consensual encounter does not trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny. See Terry v. OhioSearch
-
have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask the individual questions, Florida v. RodriguezSearch
-
U. S. 1 , 469 U. S. 5 -6, ask to examine identification, INS v. DelgdoSearch
-
U. S. 210 , 466 U. S. 216 , and request consent to search luggage, Florida v. RoyerSearch
-
language of Michigan v. ChesternutSearch
-
the officers' request or otherwise terminate the encounter. Thus, this case is analytically indistinguishable from INS v. DelgadoSearch
-
California v. HodariSearch
-
trigger Fourth Amendment scrutiny unless it loses its consensual nature. The Court made precisely this point in Terry v. OhioSearch
-
Since Terry, we have held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure. In Florida v. RoyerSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual, see INS v. DelgadoSearch
-
a seated passenger and there is little room to move around. Bostick claims to find support in language from Michigan v. ChesternutSearch
-
about whether or not the police conduct at issue was coercive. In this respect, the Court's decision in INS v. DelgadoSearch
-
Brown v. TexasSearch
-
of motions to suppress expressly on the basis of its answer to the certified question in this case. See, e.g., McBride v. StateSearch
-
Mendez v. StateSearch
-
Shaw v. StateSearch
-
Avery v. StateSearch
-
Serpa v. StateSearch
-
Jones v. StateSearch
-
out for search and seizure without particularized suspicion notwithstanding the effectiveness of this method. See Boyd v. UnitedSearch
-
Harris v. UnitedSearch
-
the suspicionless police sweep of buses in interstate or intrastate travel. United States v. LewisSearch
-
United States v. FlowersSearch
-
United States v. MadisonSearch
-
type ordinarily culminates in a request for consent to search the passenger's luggage. See generally United States v. LewisSearch
-
United States v. FlowersSearch
-
U. S. 442 fashion, the police are able to engage in a tremendously high volume of searches. See, e.g., Florida v. KerwickSearch
-
over 3,000 bags in nine-month period). The percentage of successful drug interdictions is low. See United States v. FlowersSearch
-
of evading the officers' questioning. Undoubtedly, such a sweep holds up the progress of the bus. See United States v. FieldsSearch
-
United States v. RembertSearch
-
United States v. LewisSearch
-
interference to which, until now, our society has been proudly unaccustomed. See, e.g., State ex rel. Ekstrom v. JusticeSearch
-
So.2d at 1158, quoting State v. KerwickSearch
-
F.Supp. 784, 788-789, rev'd, 287 U.S.App.D.C. 306, 921 F.2d 1294 (1990). See also United States v. AlexanderSearch
-
United States v. MarkSearch
-
United States v. AlstonSearch
-
United States v. CothranSearch
-
United States v. FelderSearch
-
because the issue whether a seizure has occurred in any given factual setting is a question of law, see United States v. MendenhallSearch
-
United States v. MaraghSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Florida v. BostickSearch
-
See Terry v. OhioSearch
-
INS v. DelgdoSearch
-
Florida v. RoyerSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial