Connection lost
Server error
U.S. v. JONES Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of a suppression motion and an ACCA sentence, holding that the defendant was not seized until physically apprehended and that reasonable suspicion justified the stop. The court also found prior convictions qualified as ACCA predicates.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies the point of seizure during police pursuit under Hodari D. and illustrates the cumulative effect of factors establishing reasonable suspicion. It also provides an application of the ACCA’s categorical approach to prior convictions.
U.S. v. JONES Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Officer Strickland, patrolling a high-crime area known for drug trafficking, observed Defendant Jones and another male in what appeared to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction. When Strickland exited his vehicle to investigate, Jones immediately fled. Strickland pursued, ordering Jones to stop. During the chase, Jones dropped a brown paper bag and other items. After approximately 200 yards, Strickland caught Jones, pushed him down, and handcuffed him. Another officer retraced the flight path and found ammunition, a holster, and a loaded revolver. Jones, after Miranda warnings, admitted to possessing the firearm. The district court denied Jones’s motion to suppress the firearm and confession. Jones pleaded guilty, preserving his right to appeal. He was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) based on three prior Tennessee convictions: a 1978 “Assault to Murder 2nd Degree,” and 1986 convictions for “Burglary II” and “Assault to Murder 1 with Injury.” The presentence report indicated the 1986 offenses occurred about an hour apart at the same residence.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the district court err in denying the defendant’s suppression motion by finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain him, and did it err in sentencing him under the ACCA by determining his prior convictions qualified as predicate offenses committed on different occasions?
The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The defendant was not seized until physically apprehended Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dol
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the district court err in denying the defendant’s suppression motion by finding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to detain him, and did it err in sentencing him under the ACCA by determining his prior convictions qualified as predicate offenses committed on different occasions?
Conclusion
The case reinforces the principle that flight from police in a high-crime Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit
Legal Rule
A person is seized under the Fourth Amendment when an officer, by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna al
Legal Analysis
The court first addressed the Fourth Amendment claim, determining that under *California Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia des
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A Fourth Amendment seizure occurs upon physical restraint or submission to