United States v. Joshimar Rodriguez Lozano, 916 F.3d 726

Late-night encounter: Officer Condon responded to a citizen report of two men walking in an apartment complex and saw Rodriguez and a high-school peer, M.A.
Initial contact was verbal and friendly: Condon called to them, asked names and what they were doing, confirmed their destination, and chatted about school/sports.
Officer offered a ride to Rodriguez’s apartment after completing the brief inquiry; both accepted.
Before allowing them into the patrol car, Condon said he would perform a safety pat-down; neither protested and both complied (Rodriguez lifted his arms; officer asked him to spread his legs).
During the pat-down an item in Rodriguez’s groin area was felt, revealed as a gun; Rodriguez was arrested and charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(5) and 924(a)(2).
District court granted Rodriguez’s motion to suppress, finding the encounter was a seizure; the government appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the officer’s initial contact was a Fourth Amendment seizure	Rodriguez: a reasonable person (given youth) would not feel free to leave, so the encounter was a seizure	Government: encounter was consensual under an objective reasonable-person test; no show of force or authority that restrained movement	Court: Reversed — encounter was consensual under objective standard
Whether offering a ride and requesting a pat-down converted the encounter into a seizure	Rodriguez: offering a ride and conditioning it on a pat-down coerced consent and created a seizure	Government: offering a ride did not create coercion; pat-down for officer safety was routine and consensual	Court: Reversed — pat-down was voluntarily consented to and objectively reasonable for safety
Whether Rodriguez’s age requires treating the encounter differently	Rodriguez: youth supports finding a seizure (district court focused on age)	Government: age immaterial under objective reasonable-person test though age may inform voluntariness in some contexts	Court: Age is immaterial to seizure analysis; district court erred to rely on age as determinative
Whether suppression of firearm evidence was warranted	Rodriguez: evidence obtained after an unconstitutional seizure must be suppressed	Government: evidence admissible because encounter and pat-down were lawful and consensual	Court: Evidence not suppressed; suppression order reversed

United States v. Grant, 696 F.3d 780 (8th Cir. 2012) (sets objective "free to leave" seizure test)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (consensual encounter vs. seizure analysis)
INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984) (reasonable person standard for seizures)
United States v. Garcia, 888 F.3d 1004 (8th Cir. 2018) (government bears burden to show consensual encounter)
United States v. Aquino, 674 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2012) (non-exhaustive factors for seizure analysis)
Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (1988) (objective standard for seizure inquiry)
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011) (consideration of age in custodial-interrogation context)
United States v. Espinoza, 885 F.3d 516 (8th Cir. 2018) (pat-down before entering police car can be reasonable for officer safety)