In the case of Brower v. County of Inyo, 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brower's estate after he was killed during a high-speed police chase when his vehicle crashed into a roadblock set up by officers from Inyo County Sheriff’s Department. The court held that setting up the roadblock constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment because it was meant to stop Brower's movement through means intentionally applied and not merely as an unintended consequence of government action. Therefore, this act needed to be reasonable under circumstances which were considered excessive force leading to death in this case. This ruling clarified that seizures occur not only when an officer physically touches someone with intent to arrest but also whenever government actions are intended to terminate freedom of movement.

In the dissenting opinion for Brower v. County of Inyo, Justice Scalia argued that the majority had misinterpreted the Fourth Amendment by focusing on intent rather than physical intrusion. He contended that a roadblock constituted a seizure only when it resulted in physical control or restraint of an individual, not merely because law enforcement intended to stop someone. According to him, if police set up a roadblock with an intention to stop all vehicles but no vehicle actually stops due to some reason (like seeing it from afar and taking another route), then there is no 'seizure'. Thus, he disagreed with the majority's view that setting up a roadblock itself constitutes as 'seizure', even before any actual stopping takes place. He believed this interpretation expanded Fourth Amendment protections beyond their original scope and could potentially limit law enforcement's ability to perform its duties effectively.