In the case of California v. Hodari D., 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person is not "seized" under the Fourth Amendment unless they are physically restrained or submit to an assertion of authority by law enforcement officers. The case arose when police saw several youths huddled around a car in Oakland, California and approached them for questioning; one youth (Hodari) fled and discarded what appeared to be crack cocaine before being tackled by an officer. The defense argued that this evidence should be suppressed because it was obtained through an illegal seizure - Hodari's flight from police. However, the court held that since Hodari did not comply with police orders to stop but instead chose to flee, he had not been seized at the time he threw away the drugs; therefore his rights were not violated and evidence was admissible.

In the dissenting opinion for California v. Hodari D., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's interpretation of "seizure" was too narrow and inconsistent with previous rulings. He contended that a seizure occurs when an officer applies physical force or shows authority, causing a reasonable person to believe they are not free to leave. In this case, he believed Hodari had been seized when he saw police officers approaching him and ran away in fear of being apprehended - even though no physical contact occurred until after drugs were discarded. Therefore, according to Justice Stevens' view, any evidence obtained (the discarded crack cocaine) should be considered as fruit of an unlawful seizure since there was no probable cause at the time Hodari began his flight from police.