Submission

Searches and seizures often follow a show of authority on behalf of a governmental agent. Such a show might involve the display of a badge, the use of sirens or lights on a police car, or even a verbal identification followed by a request to see a driver's license or other documents. When police display such authority and individuals submit to it, it is generally clear that a stop and and/or seizure has taken place. When individuals disregard such authority and/or seek to flee, the Supreme Court may have to ascertain the point at which the pursuit begins and an actual submission to police authority and/or a search or seizure begins.

A number of Supreme Court cases address this issue. In Michigan v. Chesternut (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police had not unlawfully seized an individual simply by following him in a squad car when he fled as he approached a street corner. In California v. Hodari D. (1991), the Court ruled that a police seizure required that they “take possession” of a suspect and that such possession was not complete simply when they began a chase during which an individual threw away a small rock (later identified as crack) before police could tackle him—the case was further complicated by the abandoned property doctrine. The majority relied in part on decisions in United States v. Mendenhall (1980), a case involving agents who approached a woman suspected of carrying drugs at an airport. The case had identified her perception that she could not leave as “a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for a seizure.” Similarly, in Brower v. County of Inyo (1989), the Supreme Court had ruled that lower courts could consider whether police acted reasonably when they created a suddenly appearing roadblock that led to the death of a driver who had failed to heed flashing lights and whom they had been pursuing for more than ten miles.