Opinion ID: 1133575
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the magistrate court erred in suppressing evidence.

Text: The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by government officials. Reese argues that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated in that he was seized when the officer told the female passenger that he needed to speak with the driver (Reese) and she in fact complied and returned with him. Not all personal contact between police and citizens implicates the Fourth Amendment. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 n. 16, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)); State v. Clifford, 130 Idaho 259, 261, 939 P.2d 578, 580 (Ct.App.1997). Only when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we conclude that a `seizure' has occurred. Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. at 1879 n. 16. There is no claim in this case that the officer used any physical force to restrain Reese. The inquiry in determining whether a seizure occurred is whether, under all the circumstances surrounding the encounter, a reasonable person would have felt free to leave or otherwise decline the officer's requests and terminate the encounter. State v. Fuentes, 129 Idaho 830, 832, 933 P.2d 119, 121 (Ct. App.1997) (citing Bostick, 501 U.S. at 437, 111 S.Ct. at 2387-88). In United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 1877, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980), the United States Supreme Court stated the following: Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled. Id. The district court vacated the magistrate's order granting the motion to suppress and analyzed the undisputed facts as follows: In this case there was no direct contact, touching, or speech between the officer and Mr. Reese. There was no physical assertion of authority. There were no lights and sirens. There was no banging on the door. There was no blocking of the house entrances. There was no forceful assertion of authority. There was no threat to come in after Mr. Reese if he refused to come out. There was no evidence that the officer talked to the woman in a menacing manner. When a defendant seeks to suppress evidence allegedly obtained as a result of an illegal seizure, the burden of proving that a seizure occurred is on the defendant. Fuentes, 129 Idaho at 832, 933 P.2d at 121 (citing 5 WAYNE R. LAFAVE, Search and Seizure § 11.2(b), at 44-45 (3d ed.1996)). Here, the only evidence introduced to the trial court is the arresting officer's report. As the district court noted, the report is devoid of any indication that the officer's conduct was coercive. The district court's analysis in vacating the magistrate's order granting the motion to suppress was correct.