 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Kratochwill3/16/2000
emer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 436-37 (1984). Statements given and items seized during a period of illegal detention are inadmissible. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 501 (1983). However, an investigative detention is not "unreasonable" if it is brief in nature, and justified by a reasonable suspicion that the motorist has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. See Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 439. Before determining whether an investigative detention was justified by reasonable suspicion, we must first determine whether there was a detention or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
. Not every encounter between police officers and citizens involves a seizure requiring an objective justification. See United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 553 (1980); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n.16 (1968). A person is seized only when his freedom of movement is restrained by means of physical force or a show of authority such that, in view of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would believe that he was not free to leave. See Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 553-54. "Only when such restraint is imposed is there any foundation whatever for invoking constitutional safeguards." Id. at 553.
. The United States Supreme Court has also established that, law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions. Royer, 460 U.S. at 497.
Police officers are free to address questions to anyone on the streets because police officers, like all other citizens, enjoy the liberty to address questions to others. See Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 553. "As long as the person to whom questions are put remains free to disregard the questions and walk away, there has been no intrusion upon that person's liberty or privacy as would under the Constitution require some particularized and objective justification." Id. at 554.
. Kratochwill argues that he was seized when Visser pulled into the gas station and approached him. He contends that Visser did not have a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been or was about to be committed at that time; and therefore, all evidence relating to the encounter should be suppressed.
. We disagree with Kratochwill that he was seized when Visser drove into the gas station. Kratochwill was not pulled over by Visser. Kratochwill voluntarily stopped his car in the gas station's parking lot. Visser did not turn on his squad's emergency lights, nor did he turn on the siren. Additionally, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that Visser blocked Kratochwill's vehicle to prevent him from leaving, nor is there evidence that Visser made any show of authority. Further, there is also no evidence in the record that Visser displayed a weapon, touched Kratochwill, or used language or a tone of voice that suggested compliance was required. The Fourth Amendment does not come into play when an officer approaches an individual in a public area, so long as the officer does not restrain the individual's liberty in any way. We conclude that under the circumstances presented by the record, Kratochwill was not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when Visser drove into the gas station and approached Kratochwill's vehicle because a reasonable person in Kratochwill's position would not have believed that he was not free to leave.
. Once Visser approached Kratochwill, he detected a strong odor of intoxicants on his breath; K
Page 1 2 3 Wisconsin DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|