{"id":8614,"date":"2013-10-14T06:34:08","date_gmt":"2013-04-14T02:00:23","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-04-13T21:16:06","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=8614","title":{"rendered":"CA7: Defendant not seized when he ignored officer rapping on window"},"content":{"rendered":"

Defendant was not seized when the officer rapped on the window to get defendant to roll it down and defendant ignored him and tried to dispose of evidence. United States v. Brissey<\/a>, 520 Fed. Appx. 481 (7th Cir. 2013):<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

We have repeatedly concluded that a reasonable person would feel free to terminate an encounter when officers approach a citizen sitting in a parked car and ask a few questions, as long as the officers do not flash their weapons, use physical force, use forceful language suggesting that compliance with the officers’ request might be compelled, or prevent the citizen from driving away. … These cases reflect the well-established principle that law enforcement officers do not coerce citizens into complying with their requests simply by posing requests to them. … That is all that happened here: Hutchins walked up to the truck, looked inside, got Brissey’s attention by knocking on the window, and asked him to roll the window down.\t<\/p>\n

But even if, by rapping on the window, awakening Brissey, and asking Brissey to roll down his window, Hutchins showed enough authority that a reasonable person would have felt compelled to submit, the second condition for a seizure is absent: Brissey did not actually submit. He did not “passively acquiesce” to Hutchins’s request that he roll the window down. … Rather, he ignored the request, and he then grabbed for items within his reach inside the vehicle, thus showing that his movement within the car was unrestrained. See Hodari D., 499 U.S. at 629; … Griffin, 652 F.3d at 798-801.<\/p>\n

The seizure occurred moments later, though. When Hutchins ordered Brissey out of the pickup and Brissey complied, both conditions for a seizure were met because Hutchins gave Brissey no choice and Brissey submitted. …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Back to blog<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8614","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8614","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8614"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8614\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8614"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8614"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8614"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}