M.D.Ga.: Surrounding porch was not per se an arrest

Police surrounding defendant’s porch did not constitute an arrest. United States v. Tarleton, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55197 (M.D. Ga. June 30, 2009):

Applying those factors, the Court concludes that Tarleton was not under arrest when the officers surrounded the porch. First, the officers surrounded the porch for a valid law enforcement purpose–namely, to investigate a potential drug transaction. Second, the officers had to approach the porch to investigate further. Had the officers simply sat back and done nothing, they would not have been acting diligently. Third, approaching the porch was not intrusive. At that time, the officers did not exert any physical control over Tarleton. Last, the officers surrounded the porch for a brief time. This conclusion is supported by the testimony of the Defendant’s own witness at the hearing. That witness stated that only a brief period of time elapsed between the time the officers exited their vehicles and actually entered the porch area.

Based on these factors, the Court finds that the act of surrounding the porch did not constitute an arrest. At most, it constituted a Terry stop, which was amply supported by reasonable suspicion. The reasonable suspicion arose from the tip from a known, reliable CI that Tarleton dealt drugs, and the CI’s call to Pippin stating that Tarleton was at his door to deliver drugs. Once Pippin received the information that Tarleton was on the front porch, the officers had reasonable suspicion to approach the CI’s home to investigate further.

Simple questions after the paperwork from the traffic stop was returned led to consent. United States v. Canipe, 569 F.3d 597, 2009 FED App. 0222P (6th Cir. 2009):

When Canipe signed the citation and Hagie returned his information, thereby concluding the initial purpose of the stop, Canipe neither refused Hagie’s immediate request for permission to search the truck nor asked to leave. In fact, Hagie obtained Canipe’s consent to search by asking two simple questions: whether Canipe had anything unlawful in his truck and whether Hagie could look. To the first question, Canipe responded that “he didn’t think so,” from which a fair inference of uncertainty or hesitation may be drawn. In light of Canipe’s lukewarm response and the reliable information Hagie had already acquired, it was reasonable that Hagie request permission to verify. See Erwin, 155 F.3d at 820, 822-23 (holding officers were “entitled to ask [] for permission to search” using a similar two-step questioning technique at the conclusion of a traffic stop).

For these reasons, we hold that Investigator Hagie’s brief detention and request for consent to search the truck following the initial stop were reasonable and did not transform the legal traffic stop into an unconstitutional seizure.