UC Law Journal
Abstract
In Terry v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court expanded the range of police conduct that falls within the purview of the fourth amendment to include stops of individuals that do not amount to full arrests. Recently, in Michigan v. Chesternut, the Court declined to hold that police pursuits fall within the fourth amendment. This Comment criticizes Chesternut. It argues that, to be consistent with Terry's policy, police pursuits of individuals should be considered seizures when they cause a person to believe that physical apprehension is imminent. Such a chase creates the impression in a reasonable person that he is not free to leave; therefore, as a "show of authority" that constrains citizen movement, it should be subject to fourth amendment reasonableness analysis. Under such analysis, this Comment argues, merely avoiding police is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion.
Recommended Citation
Rachel A. Van Cleave,
Michigan v. Chesternut and Investigative Pursuits: Is There No End to the War between the Constitution and Common Sense,
40 Hastings L.J. 203
(1988).
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol40/iss1/6