Compare two cases on “what’s a stop”:

“Invs. Concepcion and Dodaro merely parked alongside Mr. Alexander’s car, walked to each side of the car, and asked Messrs. Frails and Alexander routine questions about their presence in the neighborhood. It is undisputed that the time between parking the patrol car and approaching Mr. Alexander’s car was very brief, the suspects had their windows down, the investigators did not draw their weapons, did not ask for identification, and did not give any directions to Mr. Alexander or Mr. Frails during the initial part of the encounter. [¶] Police action such as this is insufficient to establish a Fourth Amendment seizure.” United States v. Alexander, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176920 (S.D. Ga. October 18, 2013).*

Defendant was stopped without reasonable suspicion: United States v. Garner, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175962 (D. Nev. October 22, 2013)*:

In this case, the government’s written motion argues that Bowman’s attempt to approach and question Garner did not constitute a seizure. The government relies on a line of cases in which the Supreme Court has held that police questioning alone does not constitute a seizure. See, e.g., Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1983) (plurality opinion). It is clear, and the court finds, that this was not a consensual encounter. Bowman and Valle were shining their patrol vehicle spotlight down the alley and focused on Garner when they observed him seated in his car. The spotlight remained on him while the officers immediately pulled their patrol car to the front of Gardner’s vehicle parking at an angle near the front headlight of Garner’s vehicle. The officers activated the patrol vehicle’s emergency lights and immediately got out of the vehicle approaching Garner’s vehicle on both sides. Although both officers testified Garner’s vehicle was not completely blocked in by the patrol vehicle, both acknowledged that Garner would have had to maneuver his own vehicle to get around the patrol car. More importantly, both Bowman and Valle testified that from the point of the initial encounter, Garner was not free to ignore the police presence and go about his business. Rather, both Bowman and Valle acknowledged that Garner was being detained. Bowman testified that Garner was not free to leave and that he was being detained until Bowman made contact with him. Valle also testified that from the point the patrol car pulled up at an angle near the front headlight of Garner’s vehicle, Garner was not free to leave. The court finds that Garner was seized in an investigatory detention.