PA: Telling defendant he was free to go not determinative; continuation of questioning was unreasonable expectation of the stop

Continuation of questioning after defendant being told he was free to leave was an unreasonable continuance of the stop because no person would think he would be free to leave. Commonwealth v. Moyer, 2008 PA Super 173, 954 A.2d 659 (2008):

[*P17] The Court made a critical observation: when an individual has been subjected to a valid detention and the police continue to engage that person in conversation, the citizen, having been in official detention, is less likely to understand that he has the right to refuse to answer questions or a search. Furthermore, while acknowledging the importance of the ninth factor, the Court stressed that “conferral of the ‘free-to-go’ advice is, itself not a reason to forego a totality assessment” and therefore does not constitute a controlling factor in assessing whether a person would actually credit a police indication that he was free to leave. Id. at 75 n.24, 757 A.2d at 899 n.24.

. . .

[*P22] In the present case, many factors establish the existence of a coercive environment supporting: 1) the reasonableness of Appellee’s belief that he actually was not free to re-enter his car and drive away, and 2) his conclusion that he could not decline the officer’s requests for more information and to search his car and person. We first examine the nature of the prior seizure. Unlike the defendant in Strickler, Appellee herein had been subjected to a traffic stop. Despite this fact, Appellee was asked his origination as well as his destination; after his answer was not sufficiently detailed, police requested more precise information. Police directed Appellee to exit his car and then walk to its rear, even though the existence of a hole in his taillight could readily have been addressed while Appellee remained in his vehicle. In this regard, we must stress that Appellee was not ordered from his vehicle based on Officer Mays’s concern for his own safety. Thus, police herein directly controlled Appellee’s freedom of action after initiating the stop and conducting questioning as if he had engaged in suspicious activity. These facts support the existence of an intimidating atmosphere because police demands that Appellee justify his whereabouts and exit his car were excessive under the circumstances leading to the stop. (emphasis in original)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.