Case Brief Of California V Hodari
Your Name: Marcos Zuniga
Case Name: California v Hodari
Citation: 499 U.S. 621
Date Decided: 1991
Area of Law: Fourth Amendment
Vote: 7/2 Scalia delivered the opinion of the court, in which justice Rehnquist, CJ, joined and White, Blackmun, O’ Conner, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ, joined. Stevens, filed a dissenting opinion, in which Marshall, J., joined
Procedural History: California v Hodari first proceeding were through the juvenile courts. Hodari tried to suppress the evidence relating to the cocaine disposed by Hodari. The courts denied the motion, The California Courts Appeals reversed the holding stating that the evidence seized had to be suppressed as it had was fruit of an illegal seizure. The California Supreme Court denied …show more content…
the lowers courts appeal and was granted certiorari for review. The United States Supreme voted 7/2 overturned California rule that Hodari was not seized until he was tackled by the officer.
Facts: Two officers dressed in street clothes with police jackets were patrolling in their unmarked vehicle.
As the officers turned the bend they noticed a group of juveniles around a red vehicle parked on the curb. The young boys took off running when they noticed the unmarked patrol car, the juveniles ran all different directions and the vehicle took off at high speeds. Hodari, continued to run when he emerged into an alley he kept turning around to check police pursuit, he noticed the officer until he was going to be apprehended. The officer, witnessed Hodari dispose of what looked like a small rock as he ran. Hodari was apprehended and was found carrying 130 dollars and a pager, long with the small rock, that was crack cocaine. Hodari filed to suppress the evidence of the cocaine during the juvenile proceeding. The motion was denied and the California courts of Appeal reversed the holding, stating the appellant was seized when the officer ran toward him. The seizure was unreasonable under the fourth amendment and the cocaine had to be …show more content…
suppressed. Issue: The issue is whether if the evidence Hodari disposed, were lawfully seized within the Fourth Amendment? Yes, the evidence was lawfully seized Hodari abandon the narcotics
Rule: Prior judicial decision set precedents for this case. United States v Mendenhall established two distinctions between seizures and encounters. Physical seizures and the show of authority are two determining actions officers preform without psychically touching the individual.
Analysis/Reasoning: Officer Pertoso lawfully conducted a seizure based upon that he demonstrated show of authority, Hodari continued to run knowing that he was to yield upon the officer’s request.
Based on those circumstances the cocaine disposed by Hodari and discovered by Pertoso was a lawful fruit of a lawful seizure, the cocaine that was discarded from Hodari was not subjected to the Fourth Amendment under the exclusionary rule at the time of him fleeing from officer Pertoso.
Conclusion/Holdings: Hodari rights against unlawful arrest will not operate to suppress evidence found prior to the physical force? The Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful seizures.
Dissent/Concurrence: Steven, J followed four propositions to why he disagreed with the decision, Stevens stated, “the officer didn’t have a lawful reason to stop or arrest respondent. The officer established authority by chasing the respondent, also the disposal of the narcotics by the respondent was a direct consequence of the officer. Stevens proceeded by stating that no arrest happen until the respondent was physically detained. Stevens also, reinstated what justice Steward suggested in the Mendenhall, The Fourth Amendment moreover by narrowing the definition of the term seizure the court has significantly limited the protection provided to the ordinary citizen by the fourth amendment. Finally, he reiterates that the courts holding will encourage unlawful display of force that will frighten countless innocent
citizen in giving up their rights.
Significance of the Case: This case affirms the distinction between casual encounters and police seizures that fall within the Fourth Amendment. This case confirmed whether the time in which the evidence seized is within the fruits doctrine is lawfully admissible in court. The courts explain that any type of seizure doesn’t require physical force to constitute a probable or reasonable seizure.
Case Name: California v Hodari
Citation: 499 U.S. 621
Date Decided: 1991
Area of Law: Fourth Amendment
Vote: 7/2 Scalia delivered the opinion of the court, in which justice Rehnquist, CJ, joined and White, Blackmun, O’ Conner, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ, joined. Stevens, filed a dissenting opinion, in which Marshall, J., joined
Procedural History: California v Hodari first proceeding were through the juvenile courts. Hodari tried to suppress the evidence relating to the cocaine disposed by Hodari. The courts denied the motion, The California Courts Appeals reversed the holding stating that the evidence seized had to be suppressed as it had was fruit of an illegal seizure. The California Supreme Court denied …show more content…
the lowers courts appeal and was granted certiorari for review. The United States Supreme voted 7/2 overturned California rule that Hodari was not seized until he was tackled by the officer.
Facts: Two officers dressed in street clothes with police jackets were patrolling in their unmarked vehicle.
As the officers turned the bend they noticed a group of juveniles around a red vehicle parked on the curb. The young boys took off running when they noticed the unmarked patrol car, the juveniles ran all different directions and the vehicle took off at high speeds. Hodari, continued to run when he emerged into an alley he kept turning around to check police pursuit, he noticed the officer until he was going to be apprehended. The officer, witnessed Hodari dispose of what looked like a small rock as he ran. Hodari was apprehended and was found carrying 130 dollars and a pager, long with the small rock, that was crack cocaine. Hodari filed to suppress the evidence of the cocaine during the juvenile proceeding. The motion was denied and the California courts of Appeal reversed the holding, stating the appellant was seized when the officer ran toward him. The seizure was unreasonable under the fourth amendment and the cocaine had to be …show more content…
suppressed. Issue: The issue is whether if the evidence Hodari disposed, were lawfully seized within the Fourth Amendment? Yes, the evidence was lawfully seized Hodari abandon the narcotics
Rule: Prior judicial decision set precedents for this case. United States v Mendenhall established two distinctions between seizures and encounters. Physical seizures and the show of authority are two determining actions officers preform without psychically touching the individual.
Analysis/Reasoning: Officer Pertoso lawfully conducted a seizure based upon that he demonstrated show of authority, Hodari continued to run knowing that he was to yield upon the officer’s request.
Based on those circumstances the cocaine disposed by Hodari and discovered by Pertoso was a lawful fruit of a lawful seizure, the cocaine that was discarded from Hodari was not subjected to the Fourth Amendment under the exclusionary rule at the time of him fleeing from officer Pertoso.
Conclusion/Holdings: Hodari rights against unlawful arrest will not operate to suppress evidence found prior to the physical force? The Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful seizures.
Dissent/Concurrence: Steven, J followed four propositions to why he disagreed with the decision, Stevens stated, “the officer didn’t have a lawful reason to stop or arrest respondent. The officer established authority by chasing the respondent, also the disposal of the narcotics by the respondent was a direct consequence of the officer. Stevens proceeded by stating that no arrest happen until the respondent was physically detained. Stevens also, reinstated what justice Steward suggested in the Mendenhall, The Fourth Amendment moreover by narrowing the definition of the term seizure the court has significantly limited the protection provided to the ordinary citizen by the fourth amendment. Finally, he reiterates that the courts holding will encourage unlawful display of force that will frighten countless innocent
citizen in giving up their rights.
Significance of the Case: This case affirms the distinction between casual encounters and police seizures that fall within the Fourth Amendment. This case confirmed whether the time in which the evidence seized is within the fruits doctrine is lawfully admissible in court. The courts explain that any type of seizure doesn’t require physical force to constitute a probable or reasonable seizure.