Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 10 of the Minnesota Constitution protect the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. A seizure occurs when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen. In determining whether a seizure has occurred, a court must determine whether a police officer’s actions would lead a reasonable person under the same circumstances to believe that she was not free to leave. Whether a seizure has occurred depends on the totality of the circumstances, as applied to a reasonable person. In this post, we examine some Minnesota caselaw dealing with vehicle “seizures,” and more specifically, seizures within the context of a vehicle that is already stopped. As the reader will see, it is possible to raise an unlawful stop challenge in the case of an already-stopped car.
Courts have generally held that it does not by itself constitute a seizure for an officer to simply walk up and talk to a person standing in a public place or to a driver sitting in an already stopped car. An encounter becomes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment if an officer orders a person out of a car or some other police action occurs which one would not expect if the encounter was between two private citizens, for example, boxing in a car, approaching a car on all sides by many officers, or using flashing lights as a show of authority. State v. Sanger, 420 N.W.2d 241, 243 (Minn.App.1988). In State v. Sanger, 420 N.W.2d 241 (Minn.App.1988), an officer observed a black Camaro parked at the curb in a residential area at 11:30 p.m. in Moorhead. The windows on the car were fogged up and its sunroof was open. The officer could see people in the front and back of the car, and could see movement inside. The officer pulled up beside and behind the car, which prevented the Camaro from exiting. The driver turned and looked at the officer, then started the car and backed up less than two feet. The officer activated his emergency lights and honked his horn, and the Camaro came to a stop. The officer then approached the car “to see what was going on.” After an interaction with the officer, the driver was subsequently arrested and charged with DWI. Sanger challenged the “stop” of his car (in effect, the lawfulness of the seizure), and lost ini the district court. In reversing the district court, the Minnesota Court of Appeals stated:
Sanger’s vehicle was already stopped, parked curbside, with another vehicle parked in front of it. [The officer] by his own admission, parked his squad car in such a position that Sanger could not exit. Although [the officer] contends that his further show of authority – activating his flashing red lights and beeping his horn – were merely done to prevent an accident, we find that this argument begs the question because it was he who created the danger and, by this point, had now effected a seizure.
The case of Sanger formally and explicitly adopted the reasoning that an officer’s use of flashing lights as a show of authority may convert an event into an unlawful stop. And Sanger’s holding has been repeatedly relied upon by subsequent cases in the Minnesota courts. For example, in State v. Demars, A04-1023, 2005 WL 89480 (Minn. App. Jan. 18, 2005), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held similarly.
In Demars, an Apple Valley police officer was on duty in the early morning hours of December 3, 2003, when he observed an SUV legally parked in a private apartment complex parking lot with the motor running, the parking lights on, and a person in the driver’s seat. The officer did not see any evidence of criminal activity in the parking lot. The officer pulled up behind the SUV on the driver’s side and parked. Other cars were parked on both sides of the running vehicle, and the officer’s squad prevented the vehicle from backing up. In order to pull forward, the vehicle would have been required to drive over a cement curb, through a treed, grassy area, and over a sidewalk in order to depart the area. When the officer approached the parked vehicle, he detected loud music coming from it. The occupant’s (Demars) eyes were closed, and Demars did not respond to the officer’s tapping on the window. A backup officer arrived, and after both officers knocked on the driver’s side door and yelled at Demars, Demars opened the door. Demars was subsequently arrested for second and third-degree DWI, refusal to test, and violation of a restricted license. Demars moved to suppress all evidence and dismiss the case, and his motions were granted by the district court. The state then appealed.
On appeal, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court. On the topic of the vehicle seizure, the following is taken from the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ opinion:
The district court in this case found that Schultz seized respondent both by blocking his car with the squad car and by using a show of force to order respondent out of his car. The state argues that Schultz was only shouting because respondent was playing loud music and that Schultz merely ‘requested’ that respondent get out of his car. But Schultz testified, and the court found, that he loudly ordered respondent out of the car when he saw the first sign of movement by respondent. On this record, we cannot say that the district court’s finding that Schultz engaged in a show of force when ordering respondent to exit the vehicle is clearly erroneous. We conclude that the district court did not err by determining that respondent was seized when Schultz blocked his exit and loudly ordered him out of his car.
As you can see, it is possible to challenge the “stop” of an already-stopped car. Each case is unique, and the inquiry is fact-intensive on the question of whether the police have effected a lawful or unlawful stop or seizure. Our attorneys are here to help. If you believe you have been the subejct of an unlawful stop by the police – even in a parked car – you may have legal recourse. Attorneys Adam T. Johnson and David R. Lundgren can provide you with a knowledgeable, detailed, and thorough defense in any criminal case. If you’re interested in discussing your case with one of our lawyers, call (612) 767-9643 to schedule your free consultation – we are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.