Section I of this Comment examines Terry v. Ohio, in which the Supreme Court decided that certain on-the-street encounters between police officers and citizens come within fourth amendment scrutiny. Section II traces the development of standards for determining when a seizure has occurred, that is, when a reasonable person would believe he was not "at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business."' In section III, this Comment argues that, when the police chase a citizen, their conduct constitutes a seizure because the citizen is aware of the police's attempt to apprehend him and is therefore not free to ignore the police. Because this type of police conduct is a seizure, it must be subject to fourth amendment control.
Section IV explores the lawfulness of the seizure of Mr. Chesternut. In other cases, the Court has approached this issue by determining whether the seizure was reasonable and therefore justified. In deciding whether a seizure is reasonable, the Supreme Court has balanced the government's need to seize an individual against the invasion that seizure entails. Among the factors weighed by the Court is the governmental agents' reasons for seizing the citizen involved, and whether these reasons constitute objective facts. This Comment concludes that chasing constitutes a significant intrusion upon a citizen's autonomy. Because a citizen's attempt to avoid police is ambiguous, such behavior taken alone is insufficient to justify such an intrusion. Thus, the police violated Mr. Chesternut's fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusions when they chased him. As a result, the abandoned narcotics and the evidence discovered in his hat-band should have been considered fruit of the constitutional violation and therefore inadmissible.
40 Hastings L. J. 203 (1988).