Thurgood Marshall

Summary

Thurgood Marshall Florida v. Bostick

It is no more acceptable for the police to force an encounter on a person by exploiting his "voluntary decision" to expose himself to perfectly legitimate personal or social constraints. By consciously deciding to single out persons who have undertaken interstate or intrastate travel, officers who conduct suspicionless, dragnet-style sweeps put passengers to the choice of cooperating or of exiting their buses and possibly being stranded in unfamiliar locations.
Source: Wikisource

Thurgood Marshall Florida v. Bostick

Thus, in the majority's view, because respondent's "freedom of movement was restricted by a factor independent of police conduct-i.e., by his being a passenger on a bus," ante, at 2387, respondent was not seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
This reasoning borders on sophism and trivializes the values that underlie the Fourth Amendment. Obviously, a person's "voluntary decision" to place himself in a room with only one exit does not authorize the police to force an encounter upon him by placing themselves in front of the exit.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature