Opinion ID: 1510072
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Seizure of Neese

Text: When the officers arrived at the Country Store, Neese was still inside. They asked him to step outside, identified him by checking his driver's license and invited him to sit in the rear seat of the patrol car. They did not consider him to be under arrest or that he was being detained; however, it is undisputed that the doors had no inside handles or latches, could not be opened from the back seat and one could only leave the car with assistance from someone on the outside. The police, of course, say that Neese could have walked off if he wanted to; however, when asked what his reaction would have been had Neese tried to leave, the officer's response was I don't know. From these facts we find that Neese was in custody. He had been accosted and restrained of his liberty. Therefore, he had been seized under the Fourth Amendment. See Section III, infra. While Neese was being detained a radio check was made by the officers and it was determined that he had no criminal record. Thus, the officers knew that as to Neese, there was nothing in his background to suggest participation in any criminal activity, nor did the information indicate any threatened or actual criminal conduct. As to Hughes, it is significant, if not critical to this inquiry, to note that there was no information from any source that implicated him in any criminal activity, or even any suspicious circumstances  at any time prior to his seizure. Neese was kept in the back seat of the car at all times. After they had identified and questioned him, without Miranda warning or other advice with respect to his constitutional rights, the police, with Neese still in the back seat, drove toward the interstate looking for Hughes, who was observed as he drove up the ramp leading from Interstate 65.