Opinion ID: 2980569
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Ride with Detective Bunch

Text: Because consensual encounters are not covered by the Fourth Amendment’s protections, the first question in this case is whether Gregory’s accompanying Bunch in Bunch’s vehicle should be characterized as a seizure under the Fourth Amendment or a consensual encounter. See Avery, 137 at 352 (“The consensual encounter, however, is not a seizure and hence not governed by the Fourth Amendment.”). The voluntariness of consent in any case “is determined by examining the totality of the circumstances.” United States v. McCauley, 548 F.3d 440, 446 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227 (1973)). -3- The “totality of the circumstances” here demonstrate that Gregory’s freedom of movement was not restrained and he was not seized. See id. As explained above, Bunch arrived at Gregory’s business while the two were speaking on the phone and requested that Gregory ride with him to Gregory’s residence. Bunch was not wearing his uniform, did not wield his weapon, and did not engage in any threatening behavior at all. The district court specifically found that Bunch did not “order” Gregory into the car, a finding that is consistent with the record and certainly not “clearly erroneous.” See Avery, 137 F.3d at 348. In fact, the reason Bunch was asked to set up the ultimate meeting in this case was because of the relationship and rapport he had built with Gregory over the course of the arson investigation. These facts differ significantly from those present in United States v. Ceballos, 812 F.2d 42 (2d Cir. 1987), where the court found that a “request” to accompany officers to the police station constituted a seizure. The court there found that “a request to appear at a police station may easily carry an implication of obligation” and that “a reasonable person would have felt obligated to accompany the agents immediately . . . when they refused [defendant’s] request to follow them in a vehicle [the defendant] was authorized to drive.” Id. at 48 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although Gregory did offer to drive his own vehicle, this case is readily distinguishable from Ceballos. Bunch arrived by himself in street clothes and an unmarked car, and he did not use any “language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with [his] request might be compelled.” United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980). Most importantly, Bunch requested that Gregory accompany him to Gregory’s own property, a request that is far less threatening than an -4- urgent request to accompany four officers to the police station. The facts in this case demonstrate a non-confrontational, consensual encounter between Bunch and Gregory.