LogFAQs > #956688727

https://casetext.com/analysis/search-and-seizure-terry-stop-what-constitutes-a-seizure

United States v. Johnson, 620 F.3d 685 (6th Cir. 2010)
The police received a call that there were suspicious people at an apartment complex. The police went to the scene and saw the defendant, carrying a bag, walking calmly from the yard of the complex to a car. The police ordered him to stop; he kept walking. The police ordered him to stop again; he kept walking until he arrived at the car, opened the passenger door, threw the bag in and then stood still at the open door. The Sixth Circuit held that when he finally stopped, he had been seized. Because there was no articulable suspicion to justify the seizure, the resulting frisk and search was unconstitutional and evidence should have been suppressed.

United States v. Fox, 600 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2010)
The defendants wife pulled up to her house and was approached by a police officer who was conducting surveillance of the house (in particular, the defendant). The officer entered the wifes car and directed her to drive across the street to a parking lot. She was questioned and then asked for consent to search her car. Ultimately, she consented to a search of the house. The Tenth Circuit held that the wife was detained; there was no basis for the detention and the consent to search was the product of this detention. The gun found in the house, therefore, should have been suppressed at the defendants trial.

United States v. Johnson, 427 F.3d 1053 (7th Cir. 2005)
The police received an anonymous tip that the defendant was a cocaine dealer and that he lived at a particular location. The police went to the defendants house and when the defendants girlfriend came out, she was asked by the police to knock on the door. She did so and the defendant came to the door. The police talked to him briefly, after which he turned around and started walking away, back down the hall. The police pulled out a gun, pointed it at the ground, and cautioned that this was a matter of officer safety. The defendant stopped in his tracks and returned to the door. He then consented to a search. The Seventh Circuit held, (1) this did amount to a detention; (2) there was no articulable suspicion supporting the detention; (3) the consent to search was a fruit of the unlawful detention.

United States v. Hall, 978 F.2d 616 (10th Cir. 1992)
Based on a tip, the police met the defendant when her train arrived at the station. She was asked for consent to search her luggage which she refused. She had purchased a one-way ticket from Flagstaff to Harrisburg, Pa. She appeared nervous when questioned. On this basis, the officers seized the luggage, but allowed the defendant to leave. This was unlawful. In order to seize the luggage, the police must have the same level of information reasonable suspicion as is required to seize the person. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1983). The facts in this case did not amount to reasonable suspicion.

Seeing a pattern here. Sounds like the officers going on a tip to detain someone are breaking the law based on case law.