W.D.Ky.: “The Sixth Circuit has long held that a police officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by asking a driver questions after the initial traffic stop has ended.”

“The Sixth Circuit has long held that a police officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment by asking a driver questions after the initial traffic stop has ended. United States v. Erwin, 155 F.3d 818, 823 (6th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (‘A law enforcement officer does not violate the Fourth Amendment merely by approaching an individual, even when there is no reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, and asking him whether he is willing to answer some questions.’). [¶] This includes a request for consent to search the individual’s vehicle. United States v. Dunson, 940 F.2d 989, 994 (6th Cir. 1991). ‘The test is not whether police expressly instruct a person not to leave, but whether the totality of the circumstances would convey to a reasonable person that she is not free to leave.’ United States v. Williams, 615 F.3d 657, 665 (6th Cir. 2010) (citing United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194, 201 (2002); Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 439 (1991)). Several factors can evidence a seizure: ‘”the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer’s request might be compelled.”’ Id. at 662 (quoting United States v. Campbell, 486 F.3d 949, 954 (6th Cir. 2007)).” United States v. Martinez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217311 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 20, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Consent, Reasonableness, Seizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.