United States v. Mendenhall
- Decided
- June 30, 1980
- Docket
- 78-1821
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 6,313 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that, under standard Fourth Amendment analysis, a person is considered “seized” if he is unable to leave an officer’s presence without permission — Washington v. County of Rockland (2004)
- holding that, under standard Fourth Amendment analysis, a person is considered "seized" if he is unable to leave an officer's presence without permission — Washington v. County Of Rockland (2004)
- holding that the reasonableness of an investigative detention turns on the totality of the circumstances in each case — State v. Garcia (2000)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Stewart announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Mr. Justice Rehnquist joined.[†] The respondent was brought to trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on a [*547] charge of possessing heroin with intent to distribute it. She moved to suppress the introduction at trial of the heroin as evidence against her on the ground that it had been acquired from her through an unconstitutional search and seizure by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The District Court denied the respondent’s motion, and she was convicted after a trial upon stipulated facts. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the search of the respondent’s person to have been unlawful. We granted certiorari to consider whether any right of the respondent guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment was violated in the circumstances presented by this case. 444 U. S. 822.
I
At the hearing in the trial court on the respondent’s motion to suppress, it was established how the heroin she was charged with possessing had been obtained from her. The respondent arrived at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport on a commercial airline flight from Los Angeles early in the morning on February 10, 1976. As she disembarked from the airplane, she was observed by two agents of the DEA, who were present at the airport for the purpose of detecting unlawful traffic in narcotics. After observing the respondent’s conduct, which appeared to the agents to be characteristic of persons unlawfully carrying narcotics,[1] the agents approached her as she was walking through the concourse, identified themselves as federal [*548] agents, and asked to see her identification and airline ticket. The respondent produced her driver’s license, which was in the name of Sylvia Mendenhall, and, in answer to a question of one of the agents, stated that -she resided at the address appearing on the license. The airline ticket was issued in the name of “Annette Ford.” When asked why the ticket bore a name different from her own, the respondent stated that she “just felt like using that name.” In response to a further question, the respondent indicated that she had been in California only two days. Agent Anderson then specifically identified himself as a federal narcotics agent and, according to his testimony, the respondent “became quite shaken, extremely nervous. She had a hard time speaking.”
Cite this
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.