Criminal Procedure in Regards to Search and Seizure - Essay Example

Through the study of the differences between two cases that set precedent for the decision of State v. Randolph (2002) in Tennessee, including California v. Hodari D. (1991) and United States v. Mendenhall (1980), these circumstances will be addressed. Also discussed within this paper will be how these decisions impact both law enforcement officers in trying to carry out the duties of their jobs, and how those same decisions can affect those with mental health conditions when faced with search and seizure circumstances.

Response Paper Number One: Criminal Procedure in Regards to Search and Seizure Differences in the Decisions Between California v. Hodari D (1991) and United States v. Menedenhall (1980) In the case of State v. Randolph (2002), as reviewed in the Memphis Law Review by Brent A. Heilig, the main issue to be dealt with is, in broad terms, the search and seizure of citizens. Though this practice, according to Mr. Heilig, is supported by Article I, Section 7 of the Tennessee State Constitution, as well as the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, it is frequently questioned and cited throughout the case.

For purposes of precedent, as with most legal cases, two previously decided cases were given for comparison, United States v. Mendenhall (1980) and California v. Hodari D. (1991). . Mendenhall (1980), the Supreme Court concluded that if a person believed they were free to leave at any time, they were not seized. This is fairly straightforward. If a person believes that they are not free to leave an area before, during, or after being detained by law enforcement, they have been seized. If they believe that they are free to leave, they are not.

However, in the case of California v. Hodari D. (1991), the Supreme Court ruled that a person was not considered “seized” unless some form of physical restraint was directed at an individual by an officer, or the individual has yielded to some form of authority shown, thus introducing a subjective element. Even the wording of the California v. Hodari D. (1991) decision is subjective; while a “form of physical restraint” can be interpreted fairly easily, as law enforcement officers have such means at their disposal, the term “show of authority” cannot.

It is not defined, exactly, what a show of authority is, whether it is calling for a suspect to halt, activating flashing lights on a patrol car, or simply showing some form of identification as a law enforcement officer. Regardless, the main point is that if they do not submit, they are not considered seized. The second main difference highlighted between the two decisions is that instead of moving in a broader direction as far as seizure parameters were concerned, California v. Hodari D. (1991) moves in the other direction completely.

As per United States v. Mendenhall (1980), all that is required to define a seizure is the belief by a person that they are not free to go. This defines a broach scope of seizure, and sets a precedent for future cases that can easily be applied. By its very nature, the phrase “not free to leave” can