Opinion ID: 2583058
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arrival of second police officer

Text: ¶ 18 In Young we embraced a nonexclusive list of police actions likely resulting in seizure, including `the threatening presence of several officers.' Young, 135 Wash.2d at 512, 957 P.2d 681 (quoting Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554-55, 100 S.Ct. 1870). While we have never squarely addressed the number of officers necessary to constitute a threatening presence under Mendenhall, other jurisdictions have found the factor difficult to meet in circumstances similar to Harrington's. See, e.g., People v. Robinson, 391 Ill. App.3d 822, 909 N.E.2d 232, 243, 330 Ill.Dec. 519 (2009) (applying Mendenhall factors, the Appellate Court of Illinois concluded three officers standing next to suspect did not constitute a seizure); United States v. Jones, 523 F.3d 1235, 1237, 1242 (10th Cir.2008) (no seizure when one officer spoke with suspect while three other officers hovered nearby); United States v. Buchanon, 72 F.3d 1217, 1224 (6th Cir.1995) (arrival of three additional officers, with emergency lights blazing, minutes after initial traffic stop was a threatening presence, but without additional Mendenhall factors the threatening presence alone could not create a seizure). ¶ 19 Bryan arrived a few minutes after the initial contact. He did not communicate with either Harrington or Reiber. Instead Bryan stood seven or eight feet away from the duo. Bryan was the only other officer to arrive. Harrington undoubtedly noted Bryan's presence. A second officer's sudden arrival at the scene would cause a reasonable person to think twice about the turn of events and, for this reason, Bryan's presence contributed to the eventual seizure of Harrington.