Brower v. County of Inyo dealt with which aspect of police pursuit?

• A. The ruling suggested deadly force is not authorized for minor traffic violations
• B. Spike strips are prohibited in all jurisdictions
• C. The case addressed chain of custody requirements for evidence
• D. The case established a requirement for search warrants before stops

Answer: (B)

Brower v. County of Inyo focuses on when a police pursuit becomes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, specifically how stop methods during a vehicle chase (like roadblocks) are evaluated for reasonableness and constitutional compliance. The ruling emphasizes that actions used to halt a fleeing vehicle can amount to a seizure, so officers must conduct pursuits in a way that respects constitutional limits and avoids excessive force or unreasonable restraints.

The option about spike strips being prohibited in all jurisdictions does not reflect this case’s principle. Brower doesn’t establish a universal prohibition on stop devices, nor does it address spike strips specifically. It centers on the constitutional implications of the pursuit itself and whether the stop method used is reasonable, not on warrants, chain of custody, or blanket bans on certain stopping tactics.