Opinion ID: 616288
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Seizure After the Warning Tickets were Issued

Text: Bowman also argues that he was impermissibly seized after the Trooper issued the warning tickets because the Trooper prevented him from leaving. This argument is also meritless. A person is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, 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. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 545, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980). The DVD of the stop is the best evidence of what happened; it confirms that written record which supports the conclusion that the interaction between the Trooper and Bowman after the tickets were issued was cooperative and consensual. The Trooper asked Bowman if he would answer additional questions and Bowman replied yeah and then responded to those questions, all of which were drug interdiction questions. The Trooper then asked Bowman if he would consent to a search of his car, to which Bowman responded no. (This alone indicates that Bowman understood that he was not required to comply with the Trooper's requests.) Then Bowman told the Trooper that he was cool with a dog-sniff search. There are no facts that would indicate a Fourth Amendment seizure occurred. This appeal point is thus also without merit.