stating that a person is “seized” if a reasonable person in those circumstances “would have believed that he was not free to leave.”
How later courts described this case
- stating that a person is “seized” if a reasonable person in those circumstances “would have believed that he was not free to leave.”
- reversing and remanding with instructions for the district court to dismiss a claimed Fourth Amendment violation where the factual “assertions . . . [we]re insufficient to allege a Fourth Amendment seizure”
- finding no detention where driver was delayed at toll booth
- a “seizure” occurs when an officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, terminates or restrains a person’s freedom of movement through means intentionally applied
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MARTIN, Circuit Judge,
concurring in the result.
I agree that Mr. and Mrs. Chandler failed to plead facts sufficient to allege a seizure under the Fourth Amendment to *1202 the Constitution. I therefore concur in the result reached by my esteemed colleagues.