Defendant was not stopped by the police, but he was certainly seized when he was ordered out of the car at gunpoint. Since the officers lacked a sufficient basis for the seizure, suppression should have been granted. State v. Harwood, 2012 N.C. App. LEXIS 812 (July 3, 2012):

As the trial court found in denying Defendant's suppression motion, the investigating officers, after following Defendant's vehicle, parked their vehicle directly behind Defendant's vehicle, drew their firearms, and ordered Defendant and his passenger to exit Defendant's vehicle. After Defendant got out of his vehicle, Agent McAbee placed Defendant on the ground and handcuffed him, thereby restraining Defendant's freedom of movement "'by means of physical force [and] ... authority'" and creating a situation in which a reasonable person would not have felt free to terminate the encounter. Brendlin, 551 U.S. at 254, 127 S. Ct. at 2405, 168 L. Ed. 2d at 138 (quoting Bostick, 501 U.S. at 434, 111 S. Ct. at 2386, 115 L. Ed. 2d at 398). Thus, although the officers did not, in fact, initiate a traffic stop, Defendant was "seized" by the agents. As a result, "in order [for the agents] to conduct [such] a warrantless, investigatory stop [of Defendant, they] must have [had] a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity." State v. Hughes, 353 N.C. 200, 206-07, 539 S.E.2d 625, 630 (2000) (citation omitted).

Defendant stopped on a bicycle was issued a citation and the officer asked for consent to search without telling him the stop was effectively over. The state failed in its “heavy burden” of proof that the search was voluntary. Crist v. State, 98 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012):

Upon issuing the citation and without acknowledging to him that the stop was over, the officer asked if he could search Crist. Even if we could assume that Crist voluntarily agreed to the search at that point, the officer's subsequent actions in waiting for a second patrol officer to arrive before conducting the search is the antithesis of a clear and convincing indication that a reasonable person would feel free to revoke consent and leave during that delayed waiting period. See Summerall v. State, 777 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) ("[A]fter the deputy issued appellant the traffic citation, he engaged appellant in further conversation in an attempt to delay him; requested to search appellant's vehicle; and after this request was denied, told appellant that he still was going to have a canine walk around the vehicle. Under these circumstances, no reasonable person would have believed himself 'free to leave.'"); cf. Sosa, 932 So. 2d at 584 ("No evidence was presented ... indicating that any officer attempted to prolong the traffic stop. Nor was any evidence presented ... that [the deputy] blocked her from leaving the scene, threatened her, held on to her license, or asked her to step out of her car.").

Defense counsel first filed a no-merit Anders brief, and the court ordered rebriefing. Id. n. 1.

Like a general motion to suppress, an appeal brief that only generally stated the certified search and seizure question for appeal was insufficient to bring the question up for appeal. State v. Simmons, 2012 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 472 (June 26, 2012):

Here, we conclude that the certified question presented by Simmons fails to precisely identify the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved. See Tenn. R. Crim. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(ii). In attempting to reserve the question of "[w]hether the cocaine and oxycodone should have been suppressed by the Circuit Court for an illegal stop and search of Andre Jon Simmons," he asks this court to conduct a complete overview of search and seizure law as applied to the facts of this case. This court has repeatedly declined to engage in or conduct such an overview. See Nicholas J. Johnson, 2001 WL 1356369, at *2; State v. Randal L. Cheek, No. M2000-00203-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1838584, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Dec. 14, 2000) (dismissing appeal because certified question, "whether there was a lawful or unlawful search of [the defendant's] residence by police officers," was overly broad question in violation of Preston), overruled on other grounds by State v. Sigifredo Ruiz, No. M2000-03221-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1246397, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, Oct. 17, 2001).

Simmons's certified question is overly broad for several reasons. First, the certified question does not adequately set forth the legal basis for Simmons's claim. It is unclear whether the police action is allegedly illegal under the United States Constitution, the Tennessee Constitution, or both. Additionally, assuming he alleges a constitutional violation, he fails to mention any of the exceptions to the warrant requirement that potentially apply. See State v. Tobias Toby Horton, No. W2008-01170-CCA-R3-CD, 2009 WL 2486173, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Jackson, Aug. 13, 2009) ("In light of the facts of this case and the trial court's ruling at the suppression hearing, the failure to mention the exigency exception to the warrant requirement in the certified question of law is fatal to this appeal."), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Dec. 14, 2009). In particular, the question does not mention reasonable suspicion, probable cause, search incident to arrest, or the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. All of these concepts would presumably be central to Simmons's claim. As framed, the question is patently non-specific because it fails to identify the scope and limits of the legal issue raised and the reasons relied upon by Simmons at the suppression hearing. Moreover, the broad terms of the certified question are not cured by Simmons's narrower assertions in his appellate brief. See id.; Kale J. Sandusky, 2009 WL 537526, at *3. Because Simmons has failed to properly identify the scope and limits of the legal issue reserved, we are without jurisdiction to consider this appeal.

You can't expect an appeals court to do your work for you if you can't do it yourself.

[One would hope that the appellate court at least read the record enough to tell that the case would have been affirmed on the merits so as to know at least that a post-conviction petition would fail for lack of prejudice. Whether or not it did, the court's finding is law of the case on the performance prong of ineffectiveness under Strickland.]