Taking a driver’s license is a seizure

Officers had no reasonable suspicion for defendant’s stop other than that he had an open beer bottle in his hand. They used that as an excuse to claim that maybe he was intoxicated in public. They could not, however, articulate a fact that indicates he was intoxicated. Therefore, there was no basis for the stop. Taking defendant’s ID to run it was a seizure. United States v. Tyler, 512 F.3d 405 (7th Cir. 2008):

In this case, the officers told Tyler–mistakenly, as it turns out–that he was violating the law by carrying an open container of alcohol in public. A reasonable person would not feel free to walk away after being confronted by two police officers and told he was committing a crime in the officers’ presence. Moreover, the officers retained Tyler’s identification while they ran a warrant check and told him he could not leave until the check was completed. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person would have believed he was obliged to stay put.

Off-duty police officer complained that “‘was compelled by the threat of job loss to submit to being taken to Central Station, and given a breathalyzer test.’ The Supreme Court, however, has held that a ‘person is “seized” only when, by means of physical force or a show of authority, his freedom of movement is restrained.’ United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553 (1980). A person is not seized simply because he believes that he will lose his job. Dreibel, 298 F.3d at 642.” Pennington v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson County, 511 F.3d 647, 2008 FED App. 0014P (6th Cir. 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.