Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

California Vs. Hodari D.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Apr 23, 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

63 entries 10 linked 53 unlinked
Show
  1. Pelham Vs. Rose US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1869
  2. Terry Vs. Ohio US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1968
  3. ins Vs. Delgado US Supreme Court · Apr 17, 1984
    Relied / Followed
  4. Hale Vs. Henkel US Supreme Court · Mar 12, 1906
  5. Reid Vs. Georgia US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1980
  6. United States Vs. Mendenhall US Supreme Court · May 27, 1980
    Distinguished
  7. United States Vs. Brignoni-ponce US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1975
  8. Cupp Vs. Murphy US Supreme Court · May 29, 1973
  9. United States Vs. Jacobsen US Supreme Court · Apr 02, 1984
  10. United States Vs. Chadwick US Supreme Court · Jun 21, 1977
  11. California v. Hodari
    Search
  12. D. - 499 U.S. 621 (1991) U.S. Supreme Court California v. Hodari
    Search
  13. D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) California v. Hodari
    Search
  14. until he was tackled. Thus, the cocaine abandoned while he was running was not the fruit of a seizure, cf. Brower v. Inyo
    Search
  15. Nester v. United
    Search
  16. U. S. 57 , 265 U. S. 58 , and his motion to exclude evidence of it was properly denied. United States v. Mendenhall
    Search
  17. such, would provide reasonable suspicion for the unquestioned seizure that occurred when he tackled Hodari. Cf. Rios v. United
    Search
  18. includes seizure of the person, see Henry v. United
    Search
  19. with lawful authority, whether or not it succeeded in subduing the arrestee, was sufficient. See, e.g., Whitehead v. Keyes
    Search
  20. position is sustained by the so-called Mendenhall test, formulated by Justice Stewart's opinion in United States v. Mendenhall
    Search
  21. U. S. 544 , 446 U. S. 554 (1980), and adopted by the Court in later cases, see Michigan v. Chesternut
    Search
  22. U.S. at 446 U. S. 554 . See also Florida v. Royer
    Search
  23. U. S. 577 (KENNEDY, J., concurring). Quite relevant to the present case, however, was our decision in Brower v. Inyo
    Search
  24. required to justify stopping Hodari, see Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  25. Nor have we ever done so. The dissent is wrong in saying that Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  26. the acceptable justification for such a seizure beyond probable cause. The dissent is correct that Katz v. United
    Search
  27. which is at odds with the broader view adopted by this Court almost 25 years ago. In Katz v. United
    Search
  28. at 389 U. S. 353 -354. We thus endorsed the position expounded by two of the dissenting Justices in Olmstead v. United
    Search
  29. the recording of oral statements, overheard without any 'technical trespass under . . . local property law.' Silverman v. United
    Search
  30. in the Katz case provided an appropriate predicate for the Court's holding in Terry v. Ohio
    Search
  31. See Dunaway v. New
    Search
  32. to stops that need not be justified by probable cause in the absence of a full-blown arrest. In United States v. Mendenhall
    Search
  33. more than whether a reasonable person felt free to leave, then the following passage from the Court's opinion in INS v. Delgado
    Search
  34. While applying such a test is relatively straightforward in a situation resembling a traditional arrest, see Dunaway v. New
    Search
  35. seizures also extends to 'seizures that involve only a brief detention short of traditional arrest.' United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
    Search
  36. Florida v. Royer
    Search
  37. Id. 466 U.S. at 466 U. S. 215 . More importantly, in Florida v. Royer
    Search
  38. and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. United States v. Mendenhall
    Search
  39. and sufficient to describe a Fourth Amendment seizure is evident from this passage in our opinion in United States v. Jacobsen
    Search
  40. See United States v. Place
    Search
  41. Texas v. Brown
    Search
  42. United States v. Chadwick
    Search
  43. the Fourth Amendment -- meaningful interference, however brief, with an individual's freedom of movement. See Michigan v. Summers
    Search
  44. Brown v. Texas
    Search
  45. Davis v. Mississippi
    Search
  46. Id. 466 U.S. at 466 U. S. 113 , and n. 5. Finally, it is noteworthy that, in Michigan v. Chesternut
    Search
  47. as in Tennessee v. Garner
    Search
  48. or by a hidden roadblock, as in Brower v. Inyo
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court California v. Hodari
    Search
  50. Brower v. Inyo
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial