The Murky Law of Seizures at the Supreme Court

Posted by William Bly | Oct 09, 2017 | 0 Comments

Lately, we've been delving into the law that deals with whether you've been “seized” by police, thereby invoking your constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. Because there is a huge spectrum of police detentions, the exact moment that you were arrested is not always clear. Unfortunately, it can make a huge difference: If the seizure is unreasonable, the exclusionary rule keeps all evidence obtained out of the courtroom.

However, despite the general confusion on this subject, there are still a small handful of cut-and-dried situations that lead to seizures under the Fourth Amendment:

On the other hand, police are allowed to question you in public without it amounting to a seizure.

In between these extremes, though, is a mess of ambiguity.

An Alleged “Rule” of Seizures

Numerous times, the Supreme Court of the United States has been called on to deal with the issue of whether a Fourth Amendment seizure has occurred. The rule that the Court has settled on has been that which they stated in U.S. v. Mendenhall: “A person is ‘seized' only when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, his freedom is restrained.” Importantly, this means that, “in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.”

A Rule that Defies Application

Unfortunately, this “rule” that the Court has adopted to determine if there has been a seizure is almost impossible to apply to a given set of circumstances, in large part because of how tricky police officers can be, as they try putting people at ease so they let their guard down and confess to a crime or consent to a search.

In fact, the Supreme Court in Mendenhall was victimized by the ambiguities latent in its own rule on seizures. Out of the nine judges on the Court, two decided that there had not been a seizure in the case. Four only assumed that a seizure had happened, because it hadn't been argued in the lower courts. The remaining three Justices also assumed that there'd been a seizure, though they “did not necessarily disagree” that there hadn't been one, saying that the decision “is extremely close.”

Other seizure cases that have made it to the Supreme Court have not fared much better. We'll go over one of them, the famous case of Terry v. Ohio, in our next blog post before revisiting the Maine Supreme Court case Maine v. Blier to round up our series on seizure law.

Maine Criminal Defense Attorney William T. Bly

Determining the moment that you've been seized by law enforcement can make a huge difference. Maine criminal defense attorney William T. Bly knows that, and understands how to advocate for your constitutional rights in court if you've been charged with a crime.

Contact him online or call his law office at (207) 571-8146 for the legal representation that you need.

About the Author

William Bly

William T. Bly, Esq. is a graduate of Rutgers College where he majored in Political Science with a minor in U.S. History. Attorney Bly attended and graduated the University of Maine School of Law. During his time in law school, Attorney Bly focused on criminal defense.

Comments

There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

WTB LAW

Here at WTB LAW, we provide professional and aggressive criminal defense representation that exceeds the expectations of our clients and secures their freedom and their future.

Contact Us Today

What distinguishes our Firm from the numerous law firms throughout the state is that we genuinely care about the well-being of our clients. The staff and attorneys of WTB LAW ensure that every client receives hands-on and personalized attention throughout the life of their case.

Menu