Opinion ID: 788213
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Washington Was Seized

Text: 32 A seizure occurs when a law enforcement officer, through coercion, physical force[,] or a show of authority, in some way restricts the liberty of a person. United States v. Chan-Jimenez, 125 F.3d 1324, 1325 (9th Cir.1997). A person's liberty is restrained when, 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.' Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991) (quoting Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 569, 108 S.Ct. 1975, 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988), and citing California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 628, 111 S.Ct. 1547, 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991)). 33 In Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488 (9th Cir.1994), we identified five factors that aid in determining whether a reasonable person would have felt at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business. Id. at 494 (quoting Bostick, 501 U.S. at 437, 111 S.Ct. 2382). These factors are: (1) the number of officers; (2) whether weapons were displayed; (3) whether the encounter occurred in a public or non-public setting; (4) whether the officer's officious or authoritative manner would imply that compliance would be compelled; and (5) whether the officers advised the detainee of his right to terminate the encounter. Id. at 494-96, 111 S.Ct. 2382. 34 In this case, Washington was confronted by six officers, five of whom were uniformed and visibly carrying weapons, and all six of whom—in Officer Sceirine's words—were around him. Like the encounter in Orhorhaghe, Washington's encounter with the six RPD officers began in the hallway of his apartment building— private property shielded from the view of the vast majority of the public and continued into Washington's one-room residence. Id. at 495. The six officers moved Washington twenty to thirty feet away from his door, refused to heed Washington's request to shut the door to his own residence, and thrice repeated that Washington faced an arrestable charge of failing to register with the RPD. Moreover, by Officer Sceirine's own admission, he repeatedly admonished Washington about the arrestable charge to convey to Washington that he could be arrested if he did not cooperate and that he was not free to terminate the encounter. Finally, the officers never notified Washington that he had a right to refuse to answer their questions and to terminate the encounter. Taking into account all of these circumstances, we conclude that Washington was seized when he was confronted by six officers. A reasonable person in his position would not have felt at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business. Id. at 494. 35 Our analysis of whether Washington was unconstitutionally seized does not end there, however; Orhorhaghe only answers the question whether Washington was seized—not whether his seizure was unconstitutional. 36