United States v. Carl O. Jordan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, for purposes of Fourth Amendment, retention of defendant’s driver’s license during police questioning constituted seizure
• holding that \what began as a consensual encounter ... graduated into a seizure when the officer asked [the defendant's] consent to a search of his bag after he had taken and still retained [the defendant's] driver's license\
• holding that “what began as a consensual encounter ... graduated into a seizure when the officer asked [the defendant’s] consent to a search of his bag after he had taken and still retained [the defendant’s] driver’s license”
• explaining that whether a seizure occurred depends only on what the \police conduct reasonably communicated\
• determining that the police officers' inhibition of Jordan's desire to exit the bus terminal parking lot by retaining his driver's license combined with the fact that the police continued to retain his license when they asked permission to search his tote bag \pushes his case over the line\
• no seizure found where the \police were dressed in plain-clothes; their weapons were hidden; they spoke in conversational tones; and they did not physically block [defendant's] path\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).