In the case of Michigan v. Chesternut, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that police pursuit without probable cause does not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The case arose when two officers in an unmarked car began following Robert Chesternut after he fled upon seeing them. They did not signal for him to stop or display any weapons but followed closely behind him as he ran through streets and into an alley where they saw him discard what appeared to be narcotics. He was arrested and charged with possession of controlled substances, but moved to suppress this evidence on grounds that it was obtained during an illegal seizure because his freedom had been restricted by their pursuit. The court held that a person is "seized" only when, considering all circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed they were not free to leave - which wasn't applicable here since there were no coercive attempts made by police to restrict Chesternut's movement nor did they attempt physical force or show authority in order for him to halt.

In the dissenting opinion for Michigan v. Chesternut, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately protect citizens' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that by following a suspect in an intimidating manner, police had indeed seized him under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Marshall criticized the majority's reliance on subjective criteria such as whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave or ignore police presence in determining if a seizure occurred. He believed this approach was flawed because it did not take into account factors like race or neighborhood which could influence how one perceives interactions with law enforcement officers. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuse of power by authorities who might use their discretion to harass individuals without sufficient cause.