California
How California v. Hodari D. applies in California: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Criminal Procedure.
In California, the principles established in California v. Hodari D. are applied to assert that a suspect is not considered 'seized' under the Fourth Amendment until they have been physically restrained or have submitted to the authority of law enforcement. The state follows a nuanced understanding of what constitutes a seizure, often focusing on the suspect's freedom of movement.
A suspect is not seized under the Fourth Amendment until there is physical restraint or the suspect submits to the authority of law enforcement.
The Court held that a mere show of authority by police does not constitute a seizure unless the individual submits to the authority.
The court determined that flight from police officers does not alone equate to a seizure.
The court ruled that a suspect’s evasive behavior does not constitute a seizure until the officers effectuate a physical restraint or the suspect submits.
California's approach aligns with federal standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court in California v. Hodari D., emphasizing that a suspect’s mere flight does not constitute a seizure. However, California courts may emphasize the subjective intent of the suspect more than some federal courts.
Students should be familiar with the implications of Hodari D. in understanding what constitutes a seizure, as issues surrounding reasonable suspicion and flight are frequently tested on the California bar exam.