United States v. Mendenhall

Supreme Court of the United States · 1980 · Criminal Procedure

446 U.S. 544 (1980)

Updated July 27, 2026

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureConsent SearchesSeizure of the Personseizurereasonable person testfree to leave

Facts

DEA agents at the Detroit airport observed respondent arriving from Los Angeles, approached her in the public concourse, identified themselves, and asked to see her identification and airline ticket. After returning those items, an agent asked whether she would accompany him to the DEA office for further questions, and she did so. At the office, the agent asked for permission to search her person and handbag, told her she had the right to decline, and she consented; a female officer again asked for consent in a private room, and respondent again consented. During the search, respondent removed two small packages from her undergarments and handed them to the officer; one appeared to contain heroin, and she was then arrested.

Issue

Whether respondent's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when DEA agents approached her in an airport, asked questions and requested identification and a ticket, asked her to accompany them to the DEA office, and obtained her consent to search her person. More specifically, the Court considered whether she was unlawfully seized and whether her consent to accompany the agents and to be searched was voluntary.

Rule

Not every encounter between police and a citizen is a seizure. A person is seized under the Fourth Amendment only if, by means of physical force or a show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained, and only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave. Consent to accompany officers or to submit to a search is judged under the totality of the circumstances, with the Government bearing the burden of proving that the consent was voluntary and not the product of duress or coercion, express or implied.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At Union Station in Chicago, two plainclothes narcotics officers approached Dana Ruiz in the main concourse, identified themselves, and asked whether she would mind answering a few questions. They did not block her path, display weapons, or touch her, and they spoke in a conversational tone while other travelers stood nearby.

Was Dana seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment at the moment the officers began questioning her?

Explanation. A person is seized only if, by physical force or a show of authority, her freedom of movement is restrained so that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. A brief, nonthreatening encounter in a public place, without weapons, touching, blocking, or commanding language, is not a seizure. The fact that the questioners are law enforcement officers does not itself convert the contact into a seizure.