UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF - UDC Law Review

Footnotes
* The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience
of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.
1 As the test is described in the evidence, it involved the use of three test tubes. When a substance containing cocaine is placed in
one test tube after another, it will cause liquids to take on a certain sequence of colors. Such a test discloses whether or not the
substance is cocaine, but there is no evidence that it would identify any other substances.
2 The Court of Appeals did not hold that the facts would not have justified the issuance of a warrant without reference to the test
results; the court merely held that the facts recited in the warrant application, which relied almost entirely on the results of the field
tests, would not support the issuance of the warrant if the field test was itself unlawful. “It is elementary that in passing on the
validity of a warrant, the reviewing court may consider only information brought to the magistrate’s attention.” Spinelli v. United
States, 393 U.S. 410, 413, n. 3, 89 S.Ct. 584, 587 n. 3, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969) (emphasis in original) (quoting Aguilar v. Texas, 378
U.S. 108, 109, n. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1511 n. 1, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964)). See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 2317,
2331, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).
3 See also People v. Adler, 50 N.Y.2d 730, 409 N.E.2d 888, 431 N.Y.S.2d 412, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014, 101 S.Ct. 573, 66
L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); cf. United States v. Andrews, 618 F.2d 646 (CA10) (upholding warrantless field test without discussion), cert.
denied, 449 U.S. 824, 101 S.Ct. 84, 66 L.Ed.2d 26 (1980).
4 See Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 3319, 3323, 77 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1983); United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. ----, ---
-, 103 S.Ct. 1081, 1085, 75 L.Ed.2d 55 (1983); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 739-741, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 2579-2580, 61 L.Ed.2d
220 (1979); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1873, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
5 See United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983); id., at ----, 103 S.Ct., at 2649 (BRENNAN, J.,
concurring in the result); Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 1547, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (STEVENS, J.,
concurring in the judgment); see also United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 13-14, n. 8, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 2484-2485, n. 8, 53
L.Ed.2d 538 (1977); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 76, 26 S.Ct. 370, 379, 50 L.Ed. 652 (1906). While the concept of a “seizure” of
property is not much discussed in our cases, this definition follows from our oft-repeated definition of the “seizure” of a person
within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment-meaningful interference, however brief, with an individual’s freedom of movement.
See Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692, 696, 101 S.Ct. 2587, 2590, 69 L.Ed.2d 340 (1981); Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438, 440,
n. *, 100 S.Ct. 2752, 2753, n. *, 65 L.Ed.2d 890 (1980) (per curiam); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 551-554, 100
S.Ct. 1870, 1875-1877, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.); Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 50, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 2640, 61
L.Ed.2d 357 (1979); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2578, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975); Cupp v.
Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 294-295, 93 S.Ct. 2000, 2003-2004, 36 L.Ed.2d 900 (1973); Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 726-727,
89 S.Ct. 1394, 1397-1398, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16, 19, n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879, n. 16, 20 L.Ed.2d
889 (1968).
6 See id., 447 U.S., at 656, 100 S.Ct. at 2401 (opinion of STEVENS, J.); id., at 660-661, 100 S.Ct., at 2403-2404 (WHITE, J.,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment); United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 455-456, n. 31, 96 S.Ct. 3021, 3032-
3033, n. 31, 49 L.Ed.2d 1046 (1976); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 487-490, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2048-2050, 29 L.Ed.2d
564 (1971); Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048 (1921).
7 United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 10, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 2482, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977); United States v. Van Leeuwen, 397 U.S.
249, 251, 90 S.Ct. 1029, 1031, 25 L.Ed.2d 282 (1970); Ex parte Jackson, 96 U.S. 727, 733, 6 Otto 727, 733, 24 L.Ed. 877 (1878);
see also Walter, 447 U.S., at 654-655, 100 S.Ct., at 2400-2401 (opinion of STEVENS, J.).
8 See, e.g., United States v. Place, 462 U.S. ----, ----, 103 S.Ct. 2637, 2641, 77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983); United States v. Ross, 456 U.S.
798, 809-812, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 2164-2166, 72 L.Ed.2d 572 (1982); Robbins v. California, 453 U.S. 420, 426, 101 S.Ct. 2841, 2845,
69 L.Ed.2d 744 (1981) (plurality opinion); Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 762, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 2592, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979);
United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 13 and n. 8, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 2485 and n. 8, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977); United States v. Van
Leeuwen, 397 U.S. 249, 90 S.Ct. 1029, 25 L.Ed.2d 282 (1970). There is, of course, a well recognized exception for customs
searches; but that exception is not involved in this case.
9 See Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 567, n. 11, 91 S.Ct. 1031, 1036, n. 11, 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971); Wong Sun v. United States,
371 U.S. 471, 484, 83 S.Ct. 407, 415, 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253, 261-262, 80 S.Ct. 1431, 1436-
90