UT: Police car’s overhead lights usually mean seizure to the motorist the police car is behind

A police car’s overhead lights can be ambiguous, but, to the motorist, they mean you are stopped and should not attempt to leave. It’s common knowledge the consequences of not staying stopped could be severe. Defendant was thus stopped, but it was valid under the community caretaking function: He was on a rural road at night in December, stopped with his hazard lights on. Anderson v. State, 2015 UT 90, 2015 Utah LEXIS 271 (Oct. 28, 2015):

We agree with the court of appeals and the majority of courts that have held that an officer’s use of overhead lights behind a vehicle parked on the side of the road may constitute a seizure. Even though we may presume that a reasonable person knows that police officers may use their overhead lights for reasons other than as a command to stop, that does not mean that the average motorist under the facts of this case would assume that the officers had no interest in detaining the vehicle and would feel free to drive away. At best, the use of a police vehicle’s overhead lights while pulling behind a car parked on the side of the road is ambiguous. The lights may signal the presence of a police vehicle for safety reasons, or they may convey the message that the officers wish to seize the vehicle parked in front of them. Faced with this ambiguity, “[f]ew, if any, reasonable citizens, while parked, would simply drive away” upon an assumption that the police did not wish to detain them. Morris, 72 P.3d at 577 (citation omitted). The consequences of wrongly guessing the officer’s intent in engaging the overhead lights and driving away could, in theory, be severe. Attempting “to flee or elude a peace officer” after receiving “a visual or audible signal from a peace officer to bring the vehicle to a stop” is a third-degree felony. Utah Code § 41-6a-210(1). The potential of even being accused of a felony would constrain a reasonable motorist from driving away under the facts of this case. See Morris, 72 P.3d at 577 (citing Kansas’s fleeing-an-officer statute as a reason why a reasonable person would not feel free to leave); Lawson v. State, 707 A.2d 947, 951 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1998) (citing a Maryland statute for the same purpose).

This entry was posted in Community caretaking function, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.