§ 3.3.1 Examples of Seizures and Non-Seizures
See also § 3.3.7, “Seizure or Detention of Item or Property.”
1. Examples of Seizure of Person or Vehicle (Stop). An officer’s statement that the person “needs to come over” or telling the person “we need to talk to you” constituted a seizure when the person stopped. See In the Matter of the Appeal of Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JT30243, 186 Ariz. 213, 920 P.2d 779 (App. 1996) (Div. 1) (telling juvenile defendant that she “needed” to come back after defendant was leaving, was a seizure, not a consensual encounter); In re Steven O, 188 Ariz. 28, 932 P.2d 293 (App. 1997) (Div. 1) (juvenile began walking away and officer grabbed juvenile’s arm); State v. Rogers, 186 Ariz. 508, 510, 924 P.2d 1027, 1029 (1996) (officers stated “police officers, we need to talk to you”). Seizure occurred where “[a] reasonable person, confronted in the bathroom of his own home by two police officers advising him that he ‘needed to come outside’ would not feel free to go about his business.” State v. Cañez, 202 Ariz. 133, 151, 42 P.3d 564, 582 (Ariz. 2002). See also United States v. Esparza-Mendoza, 386 F.3d 953, 960 (10th Cir. 2004) (after responding to a report of an altercation at a house, no stop of immigration defendant on porch occurred when officer asked him for his identification, and when he refused, the officer said she “needed” to see it); United States v. Alarcon-Gonzalez, 73 F.3d 289, 292 (10th Cir. 1996) (stop occurred because a reasonable person in Alarcon-Gonzalez’s position would not have felt free to leave after the approach of four to eight armed and uniformed police officers and INS agents and the command to “freeze”).
State v. Ramsey, 223 Ariz. 480, 224 P.3d 977 (App. 2010) (Div. 1) (Defendant was seized. Two officers patrolling a high crime area at 1:00 a.m. observed the defendant walking eastbound then change directions after making eye contact with the officers. The officers continued to follow him as he changed directions several more times in what the officers believed was an attempt to avoid them. After he walked into a housing project, the officers drove onto a grassy area to continue watching him. The defendant put his hands in his pockets and continued walking away. The officers, fearing he was attempting to grab a weapon, commanded him to stop. The defendant ignored the officer’s instructions and continued walking away. The command was repeated and the defendant turned back or looked over his shoulder while he continued to walk away from the officers. As the officers grabbed the suspect, the defendant “put his right hand on his head and, with his left hand, he placed a piece of clear plastic in his mouth.” The defendant was “seized” when, in response to an officer’s commands, he took his right hand out of his pocket and placed it on his head. The court of appeals found the trial court erred by concluding that the defendant was seized when the officers pulled up onto the grass behind the defendant, noting that this ruling was error under Hodari D. Second, the court found that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop. Considering “the totality of all relevant circumstances,” including the time of day, that it was a high crime area...
