Officer Rollins asked Tahiri-Amine "general questions, his name, information, if he
had an I.D. card on him, driver's license and everything." Nothing in the record indicates that he
demanded that Tahiri-Amine produce his driver's license or that he used force. In addition, like
the officer in McCain, Rollins did not observe Tahiri-Amine drive his vehicle. Although two
officers were present, only Rollins spoke with Tahiri-Amine, and Rollins actually informed
Tahiri-Amine that he could leave as long as he left his car where it was legally parked and was
able to get a friend to pick him up. Rollins then returned to his vehicle, and drove up the road
leaving Tahiri-Amine free to leave. Thus, Rollins had not restrained Tahiri-Amine's movement
in a way that would have constituted a seizure. "A seizure does not occur in the absence of
physical force used by a law enforcement officer or a defendant's submission to an officer's
assertion of authority." Id. at 491, 545 S.E.2d at 546 (citing Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429,
434 (1991)).
Based on these facts, we hold that the trial court did not err in concluding that the
encounter between Tahiri-Amine and Rollins was consensual and in denying Tahiri-Amine's
motion to suppress. Because the Fourth Amendment was not implicated by Rollins's actions, we
need not consider whether Tahiri-Amine's subsequent commission of the crime of driving away
from the scene on a suspended or revoked license attenuated any possible "fruit of the poisonous
tree" application resulting from Rollins's actions.
Affirmed.