\u201cThe 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) (\u2018A 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.\u2019). [\u00b6] This includes a request for consent to search the individual’s vehicle. United States v. Dunson, 940 F.2d 989, 994 (6th Cir. 1991). \u2018The 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.\u2019 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: \u2018\u201dthe 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.\u201d\u2019 Id. at 662 (quoting United States v. Campbell, 486 F.3d 949, 954 (6th Cir. 2007)).\u201d United States v. Martinez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217311 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 20, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cThe 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 … Continue reading