MoreLaw collects and publishes civil and criminal litigation information from the state and federal courts nationwide. Publication is free and access to the information is free to the public.
MoreLaw will publish litigation reports submitted by you free of charge

Info@MoreLaw.com - 855-853-4800

Description:

Richmond, VA - Criminal defense lawyer represented defendant with a charge.

“We review the factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error
and the district court’s legal determinations de novo. When a suppression motion has
been denied, this Court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the
government.” United States v. Bell, 901 F.3d 455, 474 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Ford contends that law enforcement officers seized him, for Fourth Amendment
purposes, when they shined a spotlight on his vehicle. We have held that a seizure occurs
when “in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person
would have believed that he was not free to leave.” United States v. Black, 707 F.3d 531,
537 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, a seizure occurs when
officers physically restrain a suspect or show authority in such a way as to convince a
suspect that he or she is not free to leave. See United States v. Stover, 808 F.3d 991, 995
(4th Cir. 2015).
“Where, as here, physical force is absent, a seizure requires both ‘a show of
authority’ from law enforcement officers and ‘submission to the assertion of authority’ by
the defendant.” Id. (quoting California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 626 (1991)). The
mere act of shining a spotlight on a vehicle does not constitute a seizure. United States v.
4
Roberson, 864 F.3d 1118, 1133-34 (10th Cir. 2017) (Hartz, J., concurring) (collecting
cases); United States v. Wright, 844 F.3d 759, 762-63 (8th Cir. 2016). And in any event,
Ford did not submit to the officer’s authority, but fled. We conclude that the district
court did not err in denying Ford’s motion to suppress.

Outcome: We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: