OH10: Police car turning around and stopping and officers confronting was a stop; here no RS

Officers drove past defendant, turned around, stopped, and got out of the car to talk to him, one in front and one to the side. “The act of blocking one’s path to leave is conduct which indicates that a seizure has occurred.” A reasonable person would think he’d been seized, and this was without reasonable suspicion. State v. Goodloe, 2013-Ohio-4934, 2013 Ohio App. LEXIS 5129 (10th Dist. November 7, 2013)*:

[*P13] The act of blocking one’s path to leave is conduct which indicates that a seizure has occurred. State v. Allen, 9th Dist. No. 02CA0059, 2003-Ohio-2847, ¶ 13; State v. Lewis, 179 Ohio App.3d 159, 2008-Ohio-5805, ¶ 13 (6th Dist.) (seizure occurred when officer blocked defendant’s path to walk away); Guinn (act of blocking defendant’s path into apartment constituted seizure). Compare State v. Swonger, 10th Dist. No. 09AP-1166, 2010-Ohio-4995, ¶ 22 (concluding that no seizure occurred and noting that officers did not attempt to block defendant’s path). Here, not only did one officer stand directly in front of Goodloe, but another officer came up on his side and stood within one or two feet of him. This occurred after the officers pulled up their cruiser right next to Goodloe on the sidewalk and approached him. The presence of two uniformed officers positioned as found by the trial court would communicate to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police and walk away.

[*P14] We also note two other facts that support the trial court’s conclusion that the officers’ show of authority constituted a seizure. First, we note that the officers drove past Goodloe and then turned around, stopped their cruiser close to him, and then approached him as he walked on the sidewalk. See State v. Garcia, 8th Dist. No. 97912, 2012-Ohio-5066, ¶ 24 (noting this fact in its seizure analysis). These facts further indicate that a reasonable person would believe the officers had focused their attention on him and that he was not free to leave or ignore the officers. Similarly, upon approaching Goodloe, the officers asked him about criminal activity and then pointedly asked Goodloe if he had any firearms. The accusatory nature of the questioning also creates an air of authority that could further cause a reasonable person to believe that he was not free to leave and that he had to answer the officer’s questions. State v. Hurt, 2d Dist. No. 14882 (May 5, 1995) (noting that type of questions asked by officer during an encounter could indicate seizure). See also State v. Cook, 2d Dist. No. 20427, 2004-Ohio-4793, ¶ 15 (noting the officer’s inquiry changed from requests for information to commands).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.