Legal Commentary: Does Police Seizure Result Only From Intentional Acts? View of the Minority (From Crime to Court: Police Officer's Handbook, P 11-13, 1989, Joseph C Coleman)

• NCJ Number: 120936
• Author(s): J C Coleman
• Date Published: 1989
• Length: 3 pages
• Corporate Author: South Carolina Educational Television Network; South Carolina Criminal Justice Acad
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

A minority of U.S. Supreme Court justices, writing in Brower v. Inyo County, argues that unintentional seizures by police could also result in violations of the fourth amendment.

Abstract

Justices Stevens, Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun concurred with the majority in the Brower decision, but did not agree with the majority's dictum that only intentional seizures by police could result in civil rights liability under the fourth amendment. The reasoning of the four justices is presented in detail, and although it does not have the force of law, it is worth careful consideration. The justices point out that a case may one day come before the Supreme Court in which the issue of intent will be critical in deciding whether there has been a violation of the defendant's fourth amendment rights. Therefore, the justices argue, since intent was conceded in Brower, the issue of unintentional seizure liability was not a part of the Brower case, and it may be important at a later date that the Court examine without bias the constitutionality of unintentional seizures.