631 F. App'x 299
6th Cir.2015Background
- Samuel Johnson was driving late at night; a state trooper (Ross) followed him after observing (or claiming to observe) a rolling stop; officers activated lights while following him down a ~600-foot block.
- Johnson continued a few hundred feet, signaled and turned right at an intersection without fully stopping at the stop sign, then pulled into a BP station and stopped.
- Officers exited, asked for a driver's license; Johnson produced an ID, was asked to exit, and when he did Ross saw a revolver on the floorboard; Johnson fled, was chased and arrested.
- Johnson (indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) moved to suppress the gun; a magistrate judge recommended denying suppression but the district court (without a new hearing) credited Johnson over the officers and granted suppression, concluding Johnson was seized before the second rolling stop.
- The government appealed the narrow legal question whether Johnson had been seized before he ran the second stop sign; the Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo (fact findings for clear error).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Johnson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson was "seized" before he ran the second stop sign | The seizure occurs when the motorist stops; here Johnson was not seized until he actually stopped at the gas station, so the subsequent traffic violation could justify the stop | Johnson submitted to police authority when officers activated lights and he pulled over as soon as reasonably possible, so he was seized before the second stop sign and the later traffic infraction cannot justify the stop | Court held Johnson had not objectively submitted before running the second stop sign; he was not seized until after the infraction, so the stop was lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988) (seizure requires a show of authority and a reasonable belief person is not free to leave)
- United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (test for when a person is seized)
- California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (submission to authority requires either physical force or demonstration of submission)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (when a car stops, occupants are seized)
- United States v. Blair, 524 F.3d 740 (6th Cir. 2008) (traffic infractions can provide probable cause for a stop)
- United States v. Figueredo-Diaz, 718 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2013) (reasonable suspicion cannot be based on events after a seizure)
- United States v. McCauley, 548 F.3d 440 (6th Cir. 2008) (appellate standard: view evidence favoring district court)
- United States v. Salazar, 609 F.3d 1059 (10th Cir. 2010) (seizure is an objective inquiry considering all circumstances)