Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 2,329 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from United States v. Mendenhall.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Mendenhall Anchor | green | “in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.” | 883 |
| 2 | United States v. Mendenhall | green | “the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled.” | 412 |
| 3 | Florida v. Bostick | green | “the appropriate inquiry is whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter.” | 329 |
| 4 | Florida v. Bostick | green | “as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required.” | 214 |
| 5 | United States v. Mendenhall | green | “a person is 'seized' only when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained.” | 174 |
| 6 | United States v. Drayton | green | “law enforcement officers do not violate the fourth amendment's prohibition of unreasonable seizures merely by approaching individuals on the street or in other public places and putting questions to them if they are willing to listen.” | 105 |
| 7 | California v. Hodari D. | green | “the test for existence of a 'show of authority' is an objective one: not whether the citizen perceived that he was being ordered to restrict his movement, but whether the officer's words and actions would have conveyed that to a reasonable person.” | 92 |
| 8 | United States v. Drayton | green | “if a reasonable person would feel free to terminate the encounter, then he or she has not been seized.” | 46 |
| 9 | Brendlin v. California | green | “what may amount to submission depends on what a person was doing before the show of authority: a fleeing man is not seized until he is physically overpowered, but one sitting in a chair may submit to authority by not getting up to run away.” | 38 |
| 10 | Malbrough v. Com. | green | “police officers are free to engage in consensual encounters with citizens, indeed, it is difficult to envision their ability to carry out their duties if that were not the case.” | 11 |
| 11 | McCain v. Commonwealth | green | “a police request made in a public place for a person to produce some identification, by itself, generally does not constitute a fourth amendment seizure.” | 11 |
| 12 | Malbrough v. Com. | green | “the consensual encounter becomes a seizure 'only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” | 10 |
| 13 | Dickerson v. Commonwealth | green | “mere presence of officers who are uniformed and armed does not constitute a 'show of authority' that transforms a consensual encounter into a seizure” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.