In Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (1989), the Supreme Court held that a police roadblock set up to stop a fleeing driver is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment when the driver is stopped by the very means the government intended to use.1Justia. Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 That definition opened the door for families and injured drivers to challenge police pursuit tactics in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
What Happened on the Highway
William James Brower died at the end of a 20-mile high-speed chase by Inyo County deputies. He was driving a stolen car. To stop him, officers parked an 18-wheel tractor-trailer across both lanes of the highway, placed it behind a sharp curve, and, according to the complaint, aimed their patrol car headlights so the oncoming driver would be blinded and unable to see the truck in time. Brower hit the trailer at high speed and was killed on impact.1Justia. Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593
What the Supreme Court Decided
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Court, said a Fourth Amendment seizure happens only when the government terminates a person’s freedom of movement through means intentionally applied. The roadblock met that definition. The deputies set it up to stop Brower, and it stopped Brower. That was enough to make the encounter a seizure, and enough to let his survivors bring a Fourth Amendment claim in federal court.1Justia. Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593
Why “Intentionally Applied” Matters
The test sorts deliberate police tactics from accidents that happen during a chase. If officers fire a weapon to stop a suspect, the bullet is the seizure because the bullet is what they meant to use. If a fleeing suspect trips over a curb, no seizure has occurred, because the curb was not something the government applied to stop them. A driver who loses control and crashes during a pursuit, without being forced off the road by a specific police maneuver, generally falls on the accident side of the line.1Justia. Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593
The roadblock in Brower was on the other side. The truck across the road was the tool. The collision was the intended stop.
What Happened After the Ruling
Calling the roadblock a seizure did not end the case. The Court sent it back to the lower courts to decide the separate question of whether the seizure was unreasonable. That question is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and it turns on factors including the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether the suspect was actively resisting or fleeing.3Justia. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386
Why the Case Still Matters
Brower is the case that lets pursuit-tactic lawsuits into court in the first place. Without a seizure, there is no Fourth Amendment claim, and without a Fourth Amendment claim, there is no route under Section 1983 for the injured driver or a surviving family to recover damages from the officers or the county.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 By defining a seizure around what the government intended to do, the Court tied police liability to police planning: the tactics officers choose are the tactics they answer for.