US Supreme Court US v. Mendenhall 78-1821

Decided May 27, 1980

   DEA agents met with Mendenhall at the airport, questioned her briefly, and then she agreed to go with them to the DEA office, where she later consented to a search of her person (after being informed of her right to refuse).  The search uncovered heroin, and she was convicted at trial.  The conviction was appealed on grounds that the agents had insufficient evidence to detain Mendenhall.  The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that the agents' contact wtih Mendenhall (to include her visit to the office and the search) was consensual.

   This decision clarified the definition of when a person is detained, saying that ""We adhere to the view that a person is 'seized' only when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained," and "we conclude that a person has been 'seized' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave."  The decision also listed some of the factors which are to be taken into account in deciding whether this standard has been met.  It's pretty much the same list that the district attorney always runs through on direct examination at hearings on motions to suppress statements made without Miranda advisements.