California v. Hodari D.
The Supreme Court ruled that a teenager who dropped crack cocaine while running from police officers had not yet been "seized" under the Fourth Amendment, because he never stopped or was physically caught until the moment officers tackled him.
The decision means that when someone keeps running after police order them to stop or chase them, no seizure occurs—and no Fourth Amendment violation happens—until police physically grab the person or the person actually submits to police authority.
“It does not remotely apply, however, to the prospect of a policeman yelling "Stop, in the name of the law!" at a fleeing form that continues to flee. That is no seizure.”
The Court's core reasoning that fleeing in response to a police order, without submitting, is not a seizure.
How it got here: A California juvenile court denied Hodari's motion to suppress the cocaine; the California Court of Appeal reversed, finding an illegal seizure; the State sought Supreme Court review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Late one night in Oakland, two plainclothes officers wearing police-marked jackets approached a group of youths gathered around a car. The youths panicked and ran. One of them, Hodari D., fled on foot; as an officer closed in on him, Hodari tossed away a small rock later identified as crack cocaine. The officer then tackled and handcuffed him, finding cash, a pager, and the discarded cocaine.
The question before the Court
If a teenager drops drugs while fleeing police who are chasing but haven't yet caught him, had he already been "seized" by the Fourth Amendment at that moment?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that Hodari had not been "seized" at the moment he saw the officer and dropped the cocaine. A seizure through a show of authority (as opposed to physical force) only happens once the person actually submits to that authority; simply running away from police, even in response to a command to stop, does not itself amount to a seizure.
Because Hodari kept running and was not physically caught until he was tackled, no seizure occurred before he tossed the cocaine. The drugs were therefore treated as abandoned property, not as evidence obtained through an illegal seizure, so the lower court was wrong to suppress them.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Police who chase a fleeing person without adequate legal justification generally will not have their evidence thrown out if the person discards something incriminating before being caught, since no seizure occurred until the actual catch. This gives officers more room to observe and later use evidence dropped during a chase, even when the chase itself may not have been legally justified.
What changes now
The case was sent back to the California courts for further proceedings consistent with the ruling that no seizure occurred before Hodari was tackled, meaning the cocaine evidence should not have been suppressed. This is a final merits decision on the narrow Fourth Amendment question presented; it does not resolve whether the officers had adequate legal grounds to stop Hodari in the first place, an issue the State had already conceded away below.
What this does not decide
The Court expressly did not decide whether it would have been reasonable for police to stop young men who scatter upon seeing officers, relying instead on California's concession that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion. It also did not decide whether an unlawful attempted arrest, without any touching or submission, might still be unlawful under other legal theories.
Concurrences and dissents
Dissent — Justice Stevens
“The Court's narrow construction of the word "seizure" represents a significant, and in my view, unfortunate, departure from prior case law construing the Fourth Amendment.”Stevens's central objection that the majority departed from established Fourth Amendment precedent.
Justice Stevens argued the majority's ruling was a significant and unwise departure from Katz v. United States and Terry v. Ohio, which had broadened rather than narrowed the meaning of "seizure." He contended that a police show of force which would make a reasonable person feel unable to leave should itself count as a seizure, regardless of whether the person actually submits, and warned the ruling would let officers use unlawful, intimidating shows of force as an evidence-gathering technique without Fourth Amendment consequences.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court traced the word "seizure" back to its common-law and dictionary meaning: either actually taking physical control of a person or thing, or, for an arrest specifically, at least touching someone with the intent and authority to arrest, even if the person then got away.
- Because Officer Pertoso never touched Hodari before he dropped the cocaine, the Court asked whether a mere "show of authority"—like an officer chasing or shouting for someone to stop—can itself count as a seizure even if the person keeps running and never submits.
- The Court held that a show of authority becomes a seizure only when the person actually yields to it; an order to stop that is ignored by someone still fleeing is not a completed seizure, just as an unsuccessful common-law arrest attempt without any touching or submission was never treated as an arrest.
- The Court read the earlier "Mendenhall test" (asking whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave) as describing only a necessary condition for a seizure by show of authority, not a sufficient one—meaning that test alone cannot establish a seizure without either physical contact or actual submission.
- The Court found support in Brower v. Inyo County, where a lengthy police chase itself was not treated as a seizure until the fleeing driver's car actually crashed into a roadblock, and in Hester v. United States, where discarded contraband picked up during an unlawful pursuit was not the product of any seizure.
- Applying this rule, because Hodari never stopped or submitted until he was physically tackled, no seizure occurred at the earlier moment when he merely saw the officer approaching and dropped the cocaine.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Limits United States v. Mendenhall (446 U.S. 544)
The Court said this test only sets a necessary, not sufficient, condition for a seizure by show of authority.
Reaffirms Hester v. United States (265 U.S. 57)
The Court relied on this case to hold that contraband abandoned during an unlawful pursuit was not the product of a seizure.
Reaffirms Brower v. Inyo County (489 U.S. 593)
The Court used this case to show a chase itself isn't a seizure until it actually stops the person.