{"id":17514,"date":"2015-06-02T14:30:29","date_gmt":"2015-06-02T19:30:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=17514"},"modified":"2015-06-04T05:49:47","modified_gmt":"2015-06-04T10:49:47","slug":"nc-taking-defendants-drivers-lense-back-to-the-patrol-car-to-run-it-is-a-seizure-of-the-person-and-not-de-minimus-under-rodriguez-rs-required","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=17514","title":{"rendered":"NC: Taking defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license back to the patrol car to run it is a seizure of the person and not de minimus under Rodriguez; RS required"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Taking defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license back to the patrol car to run it is a seizure of the person and not de minimus under Rodriguez. Reasonable suspicion is required. <a href=\"http:\/\/appellate.nccourts.org\/opinions\/?c=2&#038;pdf=32091\">State v. Leak<\/a>, 2015 N.C. App. LEXIS 445 (June 2, 2015) (2-1):<br \/>\n<!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>When a law enforcement officer took defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license to the officer\u2019s patrol vehicle to conduct computer research into the status of defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license, this amounted to a seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In Rodriguez v. United States, __ U.S. __, 191 L. Ed. 2d 492, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015), the United States Supreme Court rejected the argument that an otherwise unconstitutional seizure may be justified simply by characterizing it as a brief or \u201cde minimus\u201d violation of a defendant\u2019s rights under the Fourth Amendment. <\/p>\n<p>. . .<\/p>\n<p>&#8230; On the basis of Chief Gallimore\u2019s testimony, the holding of Jackson, and our analysis of the totality of the circumstances, we hold that a seizure occurred when Chief Gallimore took defendant\u2019s license back to his patrol car. The trial court erred in ruling that defendant was not seized. <\/p>\n<p>Our conclusion is neither novel nor unusual. See, e.g., United States v. Jones, 701 F.3d 1300, 1315 (10th Cir. Kan. 2012) (\u201cthe government acknowledges that Mr. Jones was seized once the officers took Mr. Jones\u2019s license and proceeded to conduct a records check based upon it\u201d) (citing United States v. Lambert, 46 F.3d 1064, 1068 (10th Cir. 1995)); United States v. Farrior, 535 F.3d 210, 219 (4th Cir. 2008) (\u201cThe fact that Officer Morris had returned Farrior\u2019s license and registration also strongly indicates that the encounter was consensual and that no seizure occurred within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.\u201d); and Liberal v. Estrada, 632 F.3d 1064, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011) (noting that the case before it was \u201clike [United States v.] ChanJimenez, 125 F.3d [1324,] 1326 [(9th Cir. 1997)] in which we held that the motorist had been seized because the police officer had retained possession of his driver&#8217;s license and vehicle&#8217;s registration\u201d).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Taking defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license back to the patrol car to run it is a seizure of the person and not de minimus under Rodriguez. Reasonable suspicion is required. State v. Leak, 2015 N.C. App. LEXIS 445 (June 2, 2015) (2-1):<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35,69],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17514","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-reasonable-suspicion","category-seizure"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17514","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=17514"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17514\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17549,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17514\/revisions\/17549"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=17514"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=17514"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=17514"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}