Michigan v. Chesternut

Background

Four officers in a marked police cruiser saw a man approach Michael Chesternut, who was standing on a street corner. When Chesternut saw the patrol car he ran. The cruiser followed, drove briefly alongside him, and officers saw him drop small packets. An officer examined the packets, found pills, and later arrested Chesternut; a subsequent search recovered more drugs. Chesternut argued at a preliminary hearing that the police chase amounted to an unlawful seizure and the Magistrate dismissed the charges; state courts affirmed that an investigatory pursuit could be a seizure under state precedent.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the short police drive alongside Chesternut was the kind of conduct that would make a reasonable person think they were not free to leave. Applying the Court’s “reasonable person” test, it found no seizure here because the police did not use lights or siren, did not order him to stop, display weapons, or aggressively block him. The Court concluded that a brief drive beside a fleeing pedestrian would not, by itself, communicate that detention was intended and therefore did not trigger Fourth Amendment seizure protections. Because no seizure occurred, the Court reversed the state court’s dismissal of the charges and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The ruling means police may follow a person who runs without that brief pursuit automatically counting as a seizure. Evidence discarded during such a short pursuit may be admissible if the encounter did not convey restraint. The Court left open situations where officers command a person to stop or otherwise clearly show they are not free to go.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Kennedy (joined by Justice Scalia) concurred, noting Chesternut’s flight itself gave officers ample cause to stop him and emphasizing that a seizure requires a restraining effect on the person.