Hypothetical Scenarios 

Hypothetical One 

Scenario.  Two police officers observe John Doe and another man walking away from each other in an alley in a neighborhood known for criminal activity.  The officers testify that it looked as though the men had been together or were about to meet until they saw the patrol car.  The officers stop Doe and ask him to identify himself and explain what he is doing there.  At the time of the stop, Doe is not suspected of engaging in any specific criminal conduct.  When Doe refuses to identify himself, he is searched, and an unlicensed weapon is found.  Doe is arrested and charged with violating the state weapons registration statute.  Doe submits a motion to suppress (or exclude from evidence) the gun arguing that he was unlawfully “seized” during the encounter and the gun was the product of this unlawful activity.  How should the trial court rule? 

Questions.  Are the police allowed to approach citizens on the street who are not suspected of engaging in criminal activity and ask them to identify themselves?  If so, would a “reasonable person” feel that they had a right to refuse to cooperate with the police?  What can the police do if cooperation is refused – can they force the person to comply with the request for identification?  Is there a specific point in the scenario when the encounter between the police and Doe became forced or nonconsensual?  What if the police had observed the same in a neighborhood that was not known for criminal activity?  Would that make a difference to the analysis? 

Hypothetical Two 

Scenario.  Two agents with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) observe a woman who loosely fits the profile of a drug courier disembarking a flight at a large, metropolitan airport.  Although they have no specific facts upon which to suspect her of criminal activity, the agents approach the woman, Jane Smith, identify themselves as federal agents, and ask to see her identification and boarding pass.  After inspecting the documents, the agents identify themselves as narcotics agents and hand the pass and identification back to Smith.  They then ask her if she would accompany them to an office in the airport for further questioning.  She does so.  Once there, she consents to a search of her carry on bag, which reveals illegal drugs.  Prior to her trial on the drug charges, Smith submits a motion to suppress the drug evidence arguing that she was illegally “seized” when the agents approached her at the airport.  How should the trial court rule? 

Questions.  The hypothetical states that the agents returned Smith’s pass and identification prior to asking her to accompany them to the airport office.  Would it make a difference to your analysis if the DEA agents asked Smith to accompany them before they returned her boarding pass and identification?  What if the DEA agents removed the luggage claim ticket from her boarding pass and retrieved her checked baggage without her consent in order to conduct a further search?  Would such activity constitute a seizure?  Do you believe that law enforcement should have greater leeway in conducing searches in airports and other travel centers?  If so, why?   

Hypothetical Three 

Scenario.  Officers engaged in a routine patrol observe a car pull to the curb.  The occupant exits the vehicle to approach Jack Jones, who was standing alone on the street corner.  When Jones observes the cruiser approach, he turns and runs.  The police cruiser accelerates, catches up to Jones, and follows beside him for a short distance.  The officers observe Jones discard an envelope, which one of the officers then seize and determines to be full of counterfeit $20 bills.  The officers arrest Jones.  Prior to trial, Jones submits a motion to suppress the counterfeit money arguing that he was unlawfully “seized” when the police followed him in their cruiser.  How should the trial court rule? 

Questions.  Would a “reasonable person” in this situation feel like he or she was detained?  Would your answer to this question change if the police had turned on the emergency siren or pulled the cruiser up onto the sidewalk to block Jones’ path?  How could Jones have ended this police encounter – could he ask the police to stop following him or walk somewhere the police cruiser could not go? 

Hypothetical Four 

          Scenario.  An officer on routine patrol drives through a desolate warehouse area at 1 a.m.  He observes a car parked beside the warehouse.  The car’s interior light is on and the police officer sees a man slumped over the steering wheel.  Concerned for the man’s safety, the officer approaches the vehicle, taps on the passenger’s side window, and awakens the man.  The officer asks the man if he is O.K., and, prior to responding, the man exits the vehicle.  Once outside the vehicle, the man, Jeff Davis, assures the officer that he is fine and had just fallen asleep.  The officer asks Davis for identification, which he provides.  The police officer takes the identification back to the police cruiser and runs a warrants check which reveals an outstanding warrant.  The police officer arrests Davis and during a search incident to that arrest discovers illegal narcotics in Davis’s pocket.  Prior to trial on the drug possession charge Davis submits a motion to suppress the drugs arguing that he was unlawfully “seized” when the officer retained his identification for the purpose of running a warrants check.  How should the trial court rule? 

          Questions.  Would your analysis of this scenario change if Davis was seated upright behind the wheel of his vehicle parked on a public street in the mid-afternoon?  Should the encounter have ended once the police officer ascertained that Davis was O.K.?  Should the police have persisted in requesting Davis’s identification?  Would a “reasonable person” in this situation have felt comfortable refusing the request for identification?  Do you believe that the officer retaining the identification long enough to perform a warrants check constitutes a “seizure?”  If so, assume that the police officer had a photographic memory that enabled him to quickly memorize Davis’s driver’s license number.  Under this scenario, the police officer would immediately return Davis’s license and permit him to go on his way prior to running the warrants check.  Once the outstanding warrant was revealed, the police officer would catch up to Davis and make the arrest.  Would this conduct constitute a “seizure?”

---

 Pertinent Law for Analyzing Hypothetical Cases

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and provides: 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Exclusionary Rule provides that items obtained as a result of an unreasonable search or seizure cannot be admitted as evidence against the accused person at trial.  See Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S 383 (1914).  Such items are excluded as “fruit of the poisonous tree.” 

Section 12 of Florida’s Declaration of Rights (Article I to the Florida Constitution) provides: 

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and against unreasonable interception of private communications by any means, shall not be violated.  No warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, particularly describing the place or places to be searched, the person or persons, thing or things to be seized, the communication to be intercepted, and the nature of evidence to be obtained.  This right shall be construed in conformity with the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.  Articles or information obtained in violation of this right shall not be admissible in evidence if such articles or information would be inadmissible under decisions of the United States Supreme Court construing the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In interpreting the Fourth Amendment, the United State Supreme Court has determined that a person is “seized” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was not free to leave.  The United States Supreme Court has clarified that whether the police have “seized” an individual depends on whether the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he or she could not ignore the police presence and go about his or her business.  Even a brief seizure violates the Fourth Amendment in the absence of specific facts upon which law enforcement officers could reasonably believe that a person is engaged in criminal activity.   

Neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Florida Supreme Court has addressed the discrete issue of whether a police officer’s retention of an individual’s identification for the purpose of running a warrants check, alone, constitutes a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment.  This is the legal issue presented in the 2005 Case, Golphin v. State.    

The hypothetical scenarios described above are drawn from cases considered by the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court.  You can read the decisions in these cases by accessing the following links: 

Hypothetical One:       Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979). 

Hypothetical Two:      United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) and Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983).  

Hypothetical Three:    Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988). 

Hypothetical Four:      State v. Baez, SC02-1173 (Fla. Nov. 10, 2004) (scroll down to decisions released November 10, 2004 and click on State v. Baez).