Opinion ID: 797817
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Encounter was Consensual

Text: 21 Orman argues that his contact with Officer Ferragamo in the mall was an immediate seizure within the rubric of the Fourth Amendment because he was not free to leave. The Supreme Court, however, has held that not all encounters with law enforcement implicate the Fourth Amendment. 22 In Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991), the Court examined whether a police encounter on a bus constituted a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The Court wrote that a seizure does not occur simply because a police officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions. Id. at 434, 111 S.Ct. 2382. The Court explained: `Obviously, not all personal intercourse between policemen and citizens involves `seizures' of persons. 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.' Id. (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868). See also Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (explaining that law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, [or] by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen). 23 The Court explained that the crucial test is whether, taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would `have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business.' 501 U.S. at 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382 (internal citations omitted). The Court described the reasonable person test as presupposing an innocent person. Id. at 438, 111 S.Ct. 2382 (citing Royer, 460 U.S. at 519 n. 4, 103 S.Ct. 1319 (Blackmun, J., dissenting)). 24 Applying Bostick 's totality of the circumstances test, we held that an encounter rose to the level of a seizure when three law enforcement officers and a bank investigator met a suspect in his apartment building lobby, the lead agent said to the suspect let's go into your apartment, and the group followed the suspect up three flights of stairs to his apartment. Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488, 491 (9th Cir. 1994). Our opinion relied on the following considerations: (1) the suspect was faced with the threatening presence of several officers, (2) the lead agent made it clear to the suspect that he was carrying a weapon, (3) the encounter was in a nonpublic setting, and (4) the lead agent acted in an officious and authoritative manner. Id. at 494-95. 25 Relying on Orhorhaghe, Orman contends that he was not free to leave because Ferragamo was uniformed and told him to step to the side of the foot traffic in the mall, i.e., away from the public and to a private space. Orman felt that any exit [he] had was blocked and knew[that he] didn't have any question of walking away at the time from that point. Plus, Orman argues that a seizure occurred because Ferragamo did not advise him that he had the right to terminate their encounter. 26 The district court, however, disagreed with Orman's position. It found that the encounter was consensual, polite, and without coercion, that the record does not establish an overbearing law enforcement presence in the mall, and that a reasonable person would not believe that he was detained or taken into custody during the brief conversation in the mall. 27 We agree with the district court. A reasonable innocent person would not feel that he was being detained by a police officer who politely asked him if he could have a word with him and quickly inquired about a handgun. This case is distinguishable from Orhorhaghe because Officer Ferragamo was carrying a radio and never drew his gun. Moreover, Officer Tomasi, who was about 20 feet behind Ferragamo, was not threatening. Additionally, the encounter was brief—lasting three to four minutes—and occurred in a public setting. Finally, the consensual nature of the encounter is not undermined by Ferragamo's failure to expressly tell Orman that he was free to leave. See INS v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 216, 104 S.Ct. 1758, 80 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984) (While most citizens will respond to a police request, the fact that people do so, and do so without being told they are free not to respond, hardly eliminates the consensual nature of the response.). Accordingly, we agree with the district court that the encounter was consensual. 7