E.D.Pa.: Touching defendant after consent to move to another place was communicative, not a seizure

Merely touching defendant to direct him back into a bar where he already agreed to go was not a separate seizure. It was as much communicative as anything. United States v. Jackson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69811 (E.D. Pa. June 27, 2011):

At the suppression hearing, Agents Cole and Logan testified they briefly placed their hands on defendant to guide him to the back of the bar. Defendant had already voluntarily consented to accompany the agents to that location. At no point during the walk to the rear did defendant attempt to flee or change course so that the agents attempted to restrain him. The agents’ touching defendant’s person reasonably can be seen as an attempt to communicate with him in a noisy environment where verbal communication was difficult. Their touching did not amount to “a laying on of hands or application of physical force to restrain movement.” California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626 (1991). Since defendant had consented to accompany the agents to the back of the bar, there was no need for them to restrict his movement. The agents’ touching defendant briefly to guide him to a specific area of the bar where he had already agreed to converse with them could not reasonably suggest to defendant that his consensual interaction with the agents was suddenly compulsory. See INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216 (1984) (“While most citizens will respond to a police request, the fact that people do so, and do so without being told they are free not to respond, hardly eliminates the consensual nature of the response.”).

Because defendant was not seized at the time he stated he had a firearm on his person, evidence of that statement, the firearm and the drugs recovered from his person pursuant to his arrest are admissible. See Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763 (1969) (the permissible scope of a search incident to arrest includes “the arrestee’s person and the area ‘within his immediate control’ – construing that phrase to mean the area from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.”).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.