United States v. Smith, 794 F.3d 681

Two Milwaukee police officers on bicycle patrol heard gunshots, then rode toward the area and encountered Dontray Smith walking into an alley at night.
Officers rode past Smith into the alley, made a U-turn, stopped ~5 feet from him, and angled their bicycles to block his path.
One officer dismounted with his hand on his gun, asked, “Are you in possession of any guns, knives, weapons, or anything illegal?” Smith nodded and admitted he had a gun.
Officers handcuffed Smith, recovered the firearm, and later recorded the contact as a “field interview.”
Smith moved to suppress his statement and the gun, arguing the encounter was an unconstitutional seizure; the district court denied suppression, he pled conditionally and appealed.
The Seventh Circuit concluded the encounter was a seizure without reasonable suspicion and reversed, ordering suppression of the gun as fruit of the unconstitutional seizure.

Issue	Smith's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the officers’ alley encounter constituted a Fourth Amendment "seizure"	The positioning, blocking, and aggressive questioning meant a reasonable person would not feel free to leave	The encounter was consensual public questioning; Smith could have walked around or through officers	Seizure: officers’ conduct (cornering in alley, angled bikes, dismounted officer with hand on gun, accusatory question) would convey to a reasonable person they were not free to leave — seizure occurred
Whether physical touching is required for a seizure	Not required; coercion can be shown by conduct other than touching	Physical contact absent, so no seizure	Physical touching not required; blocking and control of movement suffice to constitute seizure
Relevance of alley/public location to consensual-contact analysis	Alley is confined, less-traveled, and increases coercion; public status alone doesn’t defeat seizure claim	Public location implies more leeway for consensual encounters	Location matters: alleys are distinguishable from open public places and supported finding of seizure
Whether Smith’s race must control the reasonable-person test	Race and context are relevant to whether a person would feel free to leave	Race is not dispositive; objective test should not be dictated by race	Race is relevant but not dispositive; court found seizure on other objective factors without resolving race as controlling

Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (approach and questioning alone do not always constitute a seizure)
Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (reasonable-person test: free to disregard police and go about business)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (framework for stops based on reasonable suspicion)
Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567 (context and setting affect whether liberty is restrained)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (factors indicating coercion; subjective traits relevant but not dispositive)
United States v. Burton, 441 F.3d 509 (police placement of bicycles to block movement can constitute a seizure)