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: 237015 Find in a Library
Title: Seized By the Moment-But Which Moment?: How a Physical Force Seizure Requires Only Contact with Intent to Restrain, Not Intentional Termination of Movement
Journal: American Criminal Law Review  Volume:48  Issue:3  Dated:Summer 2011  Pages:1485-1500
Author(s): Allison K. Wyman
Date Published: 2011
Page Count: 16
Type: Research (Applied/Empirical)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article examines the divide between the Circuit Courts regarding conflicting definitions of physical seizure by law enforcement and when the exact moment of physical seizure occurs.
Abstract: In the 1st, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 11th Circuit Courts of the United States, the exact moment of physical seizure of a suspect occurs upon contact with intent to restrain (California vs. Hodari D.), while in the 4th, 9th, and 10th Circuit Courts, the exact moment of physical seizure requires the intended termination of movement (Brower vs. County of Inyo). This difference in interpretation of the definition of the physical seizure of a suspect is examined in detail in this article. The article begins with a discussion of major seizure law cases that explain the status of physical seizure prior to split definitions found in the circuit courts. This is followed by a section examining cases in which the two different definitions of the exact moment of physical seizure have been applied by the courts. The final section of the paper analyzes and rebuts the arguments made for not using the Hodari D. standard for physical seizure. The author argues that in cases where the exact moment of physical seizure is in doubt, courts should follow the standard established by Hodari D. where physical contact with intent to restrain constitutes a seizure. In cases where the seizure does not involve the use of physical force, then the courts should apply the standard established by Brower.
Main Term(s): Arrest and apprehension
Index Term(s): Arrest procedures; Criminal intent; Post-arrest procedures; Resisting arrest; Search and seizure
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.