skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 135649 Find in a Library
Title: Future of Fourth Amendment Seizure Analysis After Hodari D. and Bostick
Journal: American Criminal Law Review  Volume:28  Issue:4  Dated:(1991)  Pages:799-842
Author(s): T K Clancy
Date Published: 1991
Page Count: 44
Type: Survey
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: Two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have redefined what constitutes a seizure of a person within the meaning of the protections under the fourth amendment. A person is now seized only when police actions would be an arrest at common law -- when the person submits to a show of authority by police or when the police apply physical force.
Abstract: The ruling in California v. Hodari D. will significantly expand the way police legally operate and, as a result, will restrict the privacy rights of individuals. In Florida v. Bostick, the court clarified the reasonable person test, which is used to determine when a seizure develops as a result of a police accosting when the suspect complies with police instructions. These cases imply that the court will restrict what will be considered the results of an unlawful seizure and document the shift in judicial interpretation of the fourth amendment from protecting individual rights to promoting governmental interests. The author maintains that the Hodari D. Standard fails to strike a proper balance between these interests because it fails to consider unwarranted coercion and intimidation of individuals stemming from attempts to seize by requiring justification for such conduct. It also takes the response of the suspect into account, while the fourth amendment depends only on the actions of the governmental agents. 203 notes
Main Term(s): Search and seizure laws
Index Term(s): Right of privacy; US Supreme Court decisions
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.