The Souters opinion focuses on the fact that whenever a police officer make a traffic stop, the driver of the car is seized, liason to the fourth amendment act. Challenging opinion is whether the passenger should also be seized. The issue being addressed is the validity of seizure to the passengers.
To explain this controversy the encounter of Brendlin versus California is discussed.Brendlin encounter with police officer in the attempt to seizure him, led him to trouble after being noticed.
Brendlin and Simeroth were arrested. Brendlin was charged with possession of manufacture of methamphetamine after the officers found tubing, a scale and other things used to produce methamphetamine in the car.
Brendlin attempt to suppress the evidence, he pointed out that the searches of his person and car were outcomes of unconditional seizure. He claimed that officers had no reasonable suspicion to stop the car.
In the review of Florida v bostic case, it clearly points out that a person is seized by the police and he/she is free to put the governments action in trial as mandated;fouth amendment. This is applicable when the officer’s ends on restraining person’s freedom of movement. In this case Brendlin was free to appeal and challenge the court.
California vs. Hodari D case, as fourth amendment is concerned police officer is responsible to make seizure by show of authority even without use of physical force, it clearly put that there is no seizure without actual submission. There is need to undertake some test regarding the time when seizure occurred in response to authority and to look into an incident to know where it was not practiced. United States versus mendenhall portrays this test. According to this case, seizures arise when one believes that he /she has no freedom to leave in the situation he finds himself in.