Search & seizure; Motion to suppress evidence; Whether defendant was seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when a deputy parked his patrol car 10 feet away from defendant’s car at a 45-degree angle; United States v Carr (6th Cir)

The court held that the arresting deputy (P) “did not seize defendant for Fourth Amendment purposes when he parked his patrol vehicle behind defendant’s vehicle, 10 feet away and at a 45-degree angle.” Thus, it reversed the grant of defendant’s motions to suppress evidence and to dismiss the charges against him, and remanded. The trial court’s findings as to how P parked his patrol vehicle and “that, if defendant had reversed his vehicle straight back, he would have hit” P’s patrol vehicle were supported by P’s testimony and the patrol vehicle’s video of the stop. The trial court further found that “defendant’s only means to exit [was] driving over the grass in front of him.” This finding appeared to be “based on defense counsel’s argument at the hearing in which he asserted that defendant could only exit the parking lot by driving over the grass in front of him. This assertion was unsupported by any evidence, however. In fact, the” record evidence only supported a contrary conclusion. P testified, “If [defendant] would have turned his wheel as he was backing out, he would have cleared my vehicle.” In addition, as the only vehicles in the parking lot were P’s patrol vehicle and defendant’s vehicle, and based on the trial court’s finding that P “parked behind defendant’s vehicle, 10 feet away and at a 45-degree angle, it seems common sense that defendant would have been able to have clear the deputy’s vehicle if defendant ‘turned his wheel as he was backing out.’” Thus, the court was “left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake when it found that ‘defendant’s only means to exit [was] driving over the grass in front of him.’” The question then became whether P’s “conduct of partially obstructing defendant’s ability to move his vehicle” constituted a seizure. Finding Carr instructive, the court determined that because defendant could exit his parking space, with some maneuvering, the patrol vehicle’s position “alone did not turn this encounter into a seizure.” The court then considered “whether there was ‘other coercive behavior’ by [P] that turned the encounter into a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes” and it found on the record before it that there was not.