 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Rogman1/20/2004
e was no impediment whatsoever to [Rogman's] simply continuing forward."
A seizure does not occur simply because a law enforcement officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions or requests permission to search an area, even if the officer has no reason to suspect the individual is involved in criminal activity, provided the officer does not indicate that compliance with his or her request is required. Id. Circumstances indicative of a seizure may include the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled. Id.
In the instant case, the evidence is clear that Hester was the only officer involved and that Hester did not display any weapons, physically touch Rogman in any manner, or use a tone of voice or language indicating that Rogman's compliance with Hester's questions might be compelled. Additionally, as the trial court noted, Hester never activated his emergency lights and Rogman stopped his pickup and exited of his own volition. The facts in this case do not warrant a finding that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave.
In its order, the trial court found that Rogman was not seized, and we cannot find the trial court's finding to be clearly erroneous.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in overruling Rogman's motion to suppress, given that the trial court's finding that Rogman was not seized was not clearly erroneous. Thus, the district court did not err in affirming Rogman's conviction and sentence, and we affirm the district court's judgment in its entirety.
Affirmed.
|