Opinion ID: 2008176
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Encounter Between Officer Pate and Defendant

Text: Having properly set forth the three tiers of police-citizen encounters, we next consider the nature of the encounter when Officer Pate approached defendant's vehicle. Defendant contends that Officer Pate seized him for fourth amendment purposes before observing the open bottle and signs of intoxication, while the State maintains that the encounter remained a third-tier consensual encounter prior to Officer Pate's observations. For purposes of the fourth amendment, an individual is seized when an officer `by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.' Bostick, 501 U.S. at 434, 111 S.Ct. at 2386, 115 L.Ed.2d at 398, quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1879 n. 16, 20 L.Ed.2d 889, 905 n. 16 (1968). Initially, we note that the appellate court framed the seizure standard incorrectly. Citing Mendenhall, the appellate court stated that a seizure occurs when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave under the circumstances. 357 Ill.App.3d at 421, 293 Ill.Dec. 385, 828 N.E.2d 355. Although free to leave is the correct test for certain situations, it was not applicable here. In Bostick, 501 U.S. at 435, 111 S.Ct. at 2386, 115 L.Ed.2d at 399, the Supreme Court explained that the free to leave language makes sense when the person is walking down a street or through an airport lobby. However, in situations in which the person's freedom of movement is restrained by some factor independent of police conduct the free to leave test is inapplicable and the appropriate inquiry is whether a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter. Bostick, 501 U.S. at 436, 111 S.Ct. at 2387, 115 L.Ed.2d at 400. In Bostick, the Supreme Court applied this test to persons seated on a bus. The question of which test applies to a person seated in a parked vehicle was settled by this court in Gherna. In that case, this court applied Bostick rather than Mendenhall. See Gherna, 203 Ill.2d at 178, 271 Ill.Dec. 245, 784 N.E.2d 799. Thus, the appropriate test is whether a reasonable person in defendant's position would have believed he was free to decline Officer Pate's requests or otherwise terminate the encounter. Moreover, the test presupposes a reasonable innocent person. Bostick, 501 U.S. at 438, 111 S.Ct. at 2388, 115 L.Ed.2d at 400. The analysis requires an objective evaluation of the police conduct in question and does not hinge upon the subjective perception of the person involved. White, 221 Ill.2d at 21-22, 302 Ill.Dec. 614, 849 N.E.2d 406. It is well settled that a seizure does not occur simply because a law enforcement officer approaches an individual and puts questions to that person if he or she is willing to listen. Gherna, 203 Ill.2d at 178, 271 Ill. Dec. 245, 784 N.E.2d 799; Drayton, 536 U.S. at 200, 122 S.Ct. at 2110, 153 L.Ed.2d at 251. In Bostick, the Supreme Court explained that the police may do more than merely ask questions without turning the encounter into a seizure: We have stated that even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual [citations]; ask to examine the individual's identification [citations]; and request consent to search his or her luggage [citations]  as long as the police do not convey a message that compliance with their requests is required. Bostick, 501 U.S. at 434-35, 111 S.Ct. at 2386, 115 L.Ed.2d at 398-99. The central flaw in the appellate court's opinion was its failure to consider and discuss the large body of case law addressing whether police approaches to parked vehicles amounted to seizures. The appellate court freed itself from the moorings of precedent by asserting that each of these cases is  sui generis in that no two factual situations are identical and that, while precedent may provide some insight, common sense must be a court's main guide. 357 Ill.App.3d at 421, 293 Ill.Dec. 385, 828 N.E.2d 355. The court's failure to consider the applicable case law resulted in the court's finding a seizure based on factors that courts had not previously found to be coercive, and the necessary consequence of the appellate court's opinion would be to make a seizure of every approach of a police officer to a parked vehicle at night. Although it is true that the facts of no two cases are ever exactly the same, that does not mean that a court is free simply to ignore an entire body of relevant case law and the principles and guidelines articulated therein. Nowhere in the appellate court majority opinion is there even an acknowledgment of the general rule that the police may approach and question a person seated in a parked vehicle without that encounter being labeled a seizure. As Professor LaFave has noted, if an officer merely walks up to a person standing or sitting in a public place (or, indeed, who is seated in a vehicle located in a public place) and puts a question to him, this alone does not constitute a seizure. 4 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 9.4(a), at 419-21 (4th ed.2004). The seated in a vehicle clause of the above passage is supported by a lengthy list of citations to the many state and federal decisions that have recognized this rule. See 4 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 9.4(a), at 419-20, 420 n. 49 (collecting cases). In Murray, this court held that the mere approaching and questioning of a person seated in a parked vehicle does not constitute a seizure and listed many decisions from other jurisdictions that had reached the same conclusion. Murray, 137 Ill.2d at 391-93, 148 Ill.Dec. 7, 560 N.E.2d 309. Thus, any analysis of such a situation must begin with the recognition that the police may approach a person seated in a parked vehicle and ask questions of that person without that encounter being labeled a seizure. [5] The encounter becomes a seizure only if the officer, through physical force or a show of authority, restrains the liberty of the vehicle's occupant. See Bostick, 501 U.S. at 434, 111 S.Ct. at 2386, 115 L.Ed.2d at 398. In Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, 100 S.Ct. at 1877, 64 L.Ed.2d at 509, the lead opinion listed four factors that may be indicative of a seizure: (1) the threatening presence of several officers; (2) the display of a weapon by an officer; (3) some physical touching of the person of the citizen; and (4) the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled. This court adopted these factors in Murray. See Murray, 137 Ill.2d at 390, 148 Ill.Dec. 7, 560 N.E.2d 309. The record clearly shows that none of these factors were present here. The appellate court did not consider this relevant because it concluded that [w]hile the presence of such factors may be highly indicative of the occurrence of a seizure, their absence says virtually nothing.  (Emphasis added.) 357 Ill. App.3d at 423, 293 Ill.Dec. 385, 828 N.E.2d 355. Immediately preceding this passage, however, the appellate court cited those pages in Murray (137 Ill.2d at 390-91, 148 Ill.Dec. 7, 560 N.E.2d 309) in which we find the exact opposite rule. In Murray, this court listed the four Mendenhall factors and then quoted Mendenhall for the proposition that ` [i]n the absence of some such evidence, otherwise inoffensive contact between a member of the public and the police cannot, as a matter of law, amount to a seizure of that person.' (Emphasis added.) Murray, 137 Ill.2d at 390-91, 148 Ill.Dec. 7, 560 N.E.2d 309, quoting Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 555, 100 S.Ct. at 1877, 64 L.Ed.2d at 509-10. After stating this rule, this court reviewed each of the Mendenhall factors, found that they were absent, and thus concluded that no seizure had occurred. Murray, 137 Ill.2d at 390-91, 148 Ill.Dec. 7, 560 N.E.2d 309; see also Smith, 214 Ill.2d at 353-54, 292 Ill.Dec. 915, 827 N.E.2d 444 (relying on absence of Mendenhall factors to conclude that no seizure had occurred). Indeed, Mendenhall itself used an analysis based on the absence of Mendenhall factors. The lead opinion listed the four factors, noted their absence, and then concluded that no seizure had occurred. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554-55, 100 S.Ct. at 1877, 64 L.Ed.2d at 509-10. From the very minute the Mendenhall factors were created, courts have used their absence to determine that seizures had not occurred. Even in the absence of cases such as Mendenhall, Murray, and Smith, it would seem self-evident that the absence of Mendenhall factors, while not necessarily conclusive, is highly instructive. If those factors are absent, that means that only one or two officers approached the defendant, they displayed no weapons, they did not touch the defendant, and they did not use any language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with their requests was compelled. Obviously, a seizure is much less likely to be found when officers approach a person in such an inoffensive manner. The appellate court believed that, because Mendenhall stated that courts should look to the totality of the circumstances in determining whether a seizure had occurred, the court must conduct a practical, realistic inquiry to determine if a reasonable person would have felt free to leave and that the court should not focus on rigid, technical rules such as the Mendenhall factors. [6] 357 Ill.App.3d at 421-24, 293 Ill.Dec. 385, 828 N.E.2d 355. The problem with this view is that, immediately after Mendenhall said that a person is seized if in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave ( Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, 100 S.Ct. at 1877, 64 L.Ed.2d at 509), it elaborated on how courts are to make that determination. The lead opinion listed several factors that are generally indicative of a seizure, said that in the absence of some such evidence otherwise inoffensive contact between a member of the public and the police is not a seizure, and then concluded that no seizure had occurred because those factors were not present. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554-55, 100 S.Ct. at 1877, 64 L.Ed.2d at 509-10. This court expressly adopted those factors in Murray. The in view of all the circumstances language must be read in concert with, not in opposition to, the factors. See, e.g., Smith, 214 Ill.2d at 352-53, 292 Ill. Dec. 915, 827 N.E.2d 444. The factors illustrate what type of police conduct would give a reasonable person an objective reason to believe that he or she was not free to leave or was not free to decline an officer's requests. Moreover, we disagree with the appellate court's characterization of Mendenhall as requiring a practical, realistic inquiry of whether a reasonable person in the defendant's situation would feel free to leave. This is not a description that one often sees applied to the Mendenhall standard. Indeed, the first person identified under the Mendenhall standard as someone who would feel free to walk away was a woman approached in an airport by federal agents who identified themselves as such and asked to see her ticket and identification. Justice Stewart's opinion did not consider practically and realistically whether people in airports feel free to walk away from federal agents who ask to see their tickets and identification, but rather looked objectively at the police conduct under recognized factors to determine if they had curtailed the defendant's liberty through physical force or a show of authority. Moreover, the Court focused on what, objectively, the police conduct would cause a reasonable person to believe: [N]othing in the record suggests that the respondent had any objective reason to believe that she was not free to end the conversation in the concourse and proceed on her way   . Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 555, 100 S.Ct. at 1878, 64 L.Ed.2d at 510. Professor LaFave has explained that the Mendenhall test is not to be given a literal reading: [I]f [the free to walk away language] is taken to mean that a pedestrian whose movements have been interrupted and who is questioned is likely to feel free to depart without responding, it is a highly questionable conclusion. As noted in Illinois Migrant Council v. Pilliod [, 398 F.Supp. 882 (1975)]: `Implicit in the introduction of the [officer] and the initial questioning is a show of authority to which the average person encountered will feel obliged to stop and respond. Few will feel that they can walk away or refuse to answer.' This, it is submitted, is an accurate characterization of the great majority of situations in which an officer approaches a pedestrian and seeks an explanation for his activities or even identification. Thus, if the ultimate issue is perceived as being whether the suspect `would feel free to walk away,' then virtually all police-citizen encounters must in fact be deemed to involve a Fourth Amendment seizure. The Mendenhall-Royer standard should not be given such a literal reading as to produce such a result. 4 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 9.4(a), at 423-24 (4th ed.2004). We thus do not agree with the appellate court's conclusion that the absence of Mendenhall factors says virtually nothing and that a seizure is determined solely by a practical, realistic inquiry into whether a reasonable person in defendant's position would have felt free to leave (or, as is appropriate here, whether a reasonable person would have felt free to decline the officer's requests or otherwise terminate the encounter). Rather, the Supreme Court requires an objective evaluation of police conduct, based upon recognized standards, and an objective evaluation of what that conduct would cause a reasonable person to believe. This makes perfect sense because any test intended to determine what street encounters are not seizures must be expressed in terms that can be understood and applied by the officer. See 4 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 9.4(a), at 414 (4th ed.2004). Although it is not true that the absence of Mendenhall factors says virtually nothing, it is true that those factors are not exhaustive and that a seizure can be found on the basis of other coercive police behavior that is similar to the Mendenhall factors. Courts have developed additional rules applicable to police approaches of occupants of parked vehicles. Professor LaFave has summarized these cases as follows: As noted earlier, the mere approach and questioning of [persons seated within parked vehicles] does not constitute a seizure. The result is not otherwise when the officer utilizes some generally accepted means of gaining the attention of the vehicle occupant or encouraging him to eliminate any barrier to conversation. The officer may tap on the window and perhaps even open the door if the occupant is asleep. A request that the suspect open the door or roll down the window would seem equally permissible, but the same would not be true of an order that he do so. Likewise, the encounter becomes a seizure if the officer orders the suspect to `freeze' or to get out of the car. 4 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 9.4(a), at 433 (4th ed.2004). By contrast, factors that courts have found indicative of a seizure of a parked vehicle are boxing the car in, approaching it on all sides by many officers, pointing a gun at the suspect and ordering him to place his hands on the steering wheel, or use of flashing lights as a show of authority. 4 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 9.4(a), at 434-35 (4th ed.2004). Because the appellate court failed to discuss these factors, it is unclear whether they were aware of them. We find it relevant that Officer Pate's encounter with defendant involved none of this conduct. The appellate court did identify three new factors that it believed were indicative of a seizure, but we disagree with the court's conclusion that these factors are coercive. The first factor cited by the appellate court was Officer Pate's stopping of his vehicle in the middle of the roadway. The appellate court concluded that, by doing so, Officer Pate was demonstrating his authority as a police officer because private citizens may not stop their cars in the middle of the street and block traffic. [7] 357 Ill.App.3d at 421, 293 Ill.Dec. 385, 828 N.E.2d 355. The court cited section 11-1304 of the Illinois Vehicle Code (625 ILCS 5/11-1304 (West 2002)). The court further concluded that Officer Pate's stopping of his vehicle in this manner demonstrated a sense of urgency. According to the appellate court, what Officer Pate should have done instead would have been to pull up alongside defendant's vehicle and talk to him because that would have communicated nothing more than a casual encounter on the street. 357 Ill.App.3d at 422, 293 Ill.Dec. 385, 828 N.E.2d 355. There are several problems with the appellate court's analysis. First, the court cited no authority for the proposition that a police officer's parking of his vehicle in a manner not allowed for private citizens is inherently coercive. We find it more relevant that Officer Pate did nothing to signal that compliance was expected, such as turning on his overhead flashing lights as a show of authority. He did not even pull his car in behind defendant's vehicle until after he had noticed signs of intoxication. Although the appellate court believed that Officer Pate was demonstrating a sense of urgency and displaying his authority as a police officer, another equally likely explanation for Officer Pate's behavior was that he did not expect to be at the scene very long. This inference is supported by the fact that Officer Pate pulled his vehicle in behind defendant's vehicle after he noticed signs of intoxication and radioed for assistance. Once it was apparent that he would be at the scene for awhile, he moved his car out of the middle of the street. Second, even if the appellate court was correct that a police officer commits a show of authority by parking in a manner not allowed for private citizens, its proposed cure would not have fixed the problem. If Officer Pate would have pulled up alongside the defendant's vehicle as the appellate court wanted him to do, that also would have been an action that the law does not allow private citizens to engage in. See 625 ILCS 5/11-1303(a)(1) (West 2004) ([e]xcept when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic-control device, no person shall: 1. Stop, stand or park a vehicle: a. On the roadway side of any vehicle stopped or parked at the edge or curb of a street). Third, if Officer Pate would have pulled alongside defendant's vehicle, he would have been blocking defendant in his parking space, and this is a factor often used by courts to determine that a seizure of a person in a parked vehicle has occurred. In Gherna, one of the factors that this court relied on in determining that the defendant was seized was that two officers on bicycles positioned themselves alongside the driver's door and the passenger's door: the positioning of the officers and their bicycles prevented defendant from either exiting the vehicle or driving the vehicle away from the scene. Gherna, 203 Ill.2d at 180, 271 Ill.Dec. 245, 784 N.E.2d 799; see also United States v. Kerr, 817 F.2d 1384 (9th Cir.1987) (finding seizure where police blocked car in a one-lane driveway); People v. Beverly, 364 Ill. App.3d 361, 370, 301 Ill.Dec. 97, 845 N.E.2d 962 (2006) (finding seizure where police officer parked perpendicularly behind defendant's vehicle, blocking it in its parking spot); Commonwealth v. King, 389 Mass. 233, 241, 449 N.E.2d 1217, 1223 (1983) (officer committed seizure when he positioned his cruiser in such a way as to block defendant's vehicle in its parking space); State v. Roberts, 293 Mont. 476, 483, 977 P.2d 974, 979 (1999) (seizure where officer parked his car in such a way as to block defendant in his driveway); Commonwealth v. Greber, 478 Pa. 63, 67, 385 A.2d 1313, 1316 (1978) (seizure where officer parked his squad car in front of a parked car in such a way as to block it in a parking lot); cf. United States v. Encarnacion-Galvez, 964 F.2d 402, 410 (5th Cir. 1992) (border patrol agents approached two persons in a parked vehicle and asked for identification; court found no seizure, in part because the agents did not park their vehicle in such a way that would block Encarnacion-Galvez's path if he chose to drive or walk away). We noted earlier the importance in seizure analysis of setting forth guidelines that can be understood and applied by the officer. It is surely not reasonable, after the courts have for years found that blocking cars in their parking spots is coercive, to hold that Officer Pate seized defendant because he failed to block defendant in his parking space. See Chesternut, 486 U.S. at 574, 108 S.Ct. at 1979-80, 100 L.Ed.2d at 572 (noting that seizure standard calls for consistent application from one police encounter to the next so that the police may determine in advance whether the conduct contemplated will implicate the Fourth Amendment). In sum, we find nothing inherently coercive in the way Officer Pate parked his vehicle. The second factor relied upon by the appellate court was that Officer Pate shined a flashlight on defendant's car as he approached. According to the appellate court, shining a flashlight is intrusive and is analogous to the Mendenhall factor of using language or tone of voice indicating that compliance is compelled. [8] 357 Ill. App.3d at 422, 293 Ill.Dec. 385, 828 N.E.2d 355. Once again, precedent leads to the opposite result. It is well settled that the use of a flashlight to illuminate a vehicle located on a public way is not a fourth amendment search. Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 739-40, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 1542, 75 L.Ed.2d 502, 512 (1983) (It is likewise beyond dispute that Maples' action in shining his flashlight to illuminate the interior of Brown's car trenched upon no right secured to the latter by the Fourth Amendment); see also 1 W. LaFave, Search & Seizure § 2.2(b), at 461-62 (4th ed.2004) (explaining rule and stating that the reason typically given is that the owner or operator of an automobile parked or being operated on a public thoroughfare does not have a justified expectation that such a common device as a flashlight would not be used during the nighttime to see what would be visible without such illumination during daylight hours). Whether the use of a flashlight constitutes a fourth amendment seizure depends on whether the officer engaged in other coercive behavior. In People v. Holdman, 73 Ill.2d 213, 220, 22 Ill.Dec. 679, 383 N.E.2d 155 (1978), this court held that shining a light on a vehicle was not a stop when there was no coercion or threat of coercion. See also People v. Erby, 213 Ill. App.3d 657, 662, 157 Ill.Dec. 276, 572 N.E.2d 345 (1991) (shining a light on a parked vehicle not a stop absent coercion or threat of coercion). By contrast, in People v. Bunch, 207 Ill.2d 7, 19, 277 Ill. Dec. 658, 796 N.E.2d 1024 (2003), this court found that the defendant was seized when, after a police officer ordered him to exit a vehicle in which he had been a passenger, the officer had him stand next to the handcuffed and arrested driver, stood one foot away from him, shined a flashlight in his face, and said, What's your name? Where you coming from? Courts in other jurisdictions have also generally found that the use of a flashlight or a spotlight, without other coercive behavior, is insufficient to transform a consensual encounter into a seizure. See, e.g., State v. Stuart, 168 Ariz. 83, 86, 811 P.2d 335, 338 (App.1990) (shining spotlight on vehicle not a seizure); People v. Perez, 211 Cal.App.3d 1492, 1496, 260 Cal.Rptr. 172, 174 (1989) (shining high beams and spotlights on vehicle not a detention; [w]hile the use of high beams and spotlights might cause a reasonable person to feel himself the object of official scrutiny, such directed scrutiny does not amount to a detention); People v. Cascio, 932 P.2d 1381, 1388 (Colo.1997) (officers' use of flashlights and a spotlight was a practical necessity because it was getting dark; no seizure because lights were not used in an intimidating manner); State v. Baker, 141 Idaho 163, 167, 107 P.3d 1214, 1218 (2004) (using spotlight to illuminate the defendant's car was not a seizure); Campbell v. State, 841 N.E.2d 624, 630 (Ind.App.2006) (shining of spotlight on defendant, who was standing next to a parked car, not a seizure); Commonwealth v. Eckert, 431 Mass. 591, 595, 728 N.E.2d 312, 316 (2000) (by walking up to the defendant's parked vehicle at the rest area, shining his flashlight inside and asking whether the defendant was `all set,' Trooper Shugrue did not engage in any conduct that requires constitutional justification); State v. Clayton, 309 Mont. 215, 221, 45 P.3d 30, 35 (2002) (shining of spotlight on defendant's vehicle not a seizure); State v. Justesen, 2002 UT App 165, ¶ 15, 47 P.3d 936, 939 (officer's use of takedown lights served to illuminate the area and was not a show of authority); State v. Young, 135 Wash.2d 498, 513-14, 957 P.2d 681, 688-89 (1998) (use of spotlight not a seizure). When the use of a light is accompanied by coercive behavior, such as blocking a car in its parking space, the courts will be more likely to find a seizure. See, e.g., United States v. Packer, 15 F.3d 654, 657 (7th Cir.1994) (seizure found when officers' vehicles were in front of and behind defendant's vehicle and had their takedown lights shining, and one officer approached with a flashlight shining and asked the vehicle's occupants to put their hands in the air); Commonwealth v. Mulholland, 2002 PA Super. 59, ¶ 11, 794 A.2d 398, 401-02 (seizure found when police officer shined a spotlight on the defendant's vehicle and parked his cruiser in such a way that the defendant could not exit the parking lot). Here, Officer Pate's use of the flashlight was not accompanied by other coercive behavior. As we noted above, he parked his car past defendant's vehicle so as not to block it in its space and did not activate his overhead flashing lights. He merely shined his flashlight on the car as he walked toward it. We view this behavior not as coercive, but as merely incident to a police officer's performance of his job after dark. In Baker, the Idaho Supreme Court noted that a police officer's use of a light at night allows him to gain more information about the situation he is confronting, which can significantly enhance officer safety. Baker, 141 Idaho at 167, 107 P.3d at 1218. If we adopted the appellate court's view that the use of a flashlight is inherently coercive and analogous to a tone of voice indicating that compliance is compelled, that would make a seizure of any nighttime encounter in which an officer uses a flashlight or spotlight. This would leave the officer with a dilemma that we are not prepared to require: `an officer is not constitutionally required to choose between a consensual encounter in the dark or turning on a spotlight and thereby effectuating a detention that may not be supported by reasonable suspicion.' Baker, 141 Idaho at 167, 107 P.3d at 1218. The final allegedly coercive factor cited by the appellate court was that Officer Pate approached defendant's vehicle from the rear driver's side, instead of merely walking straight up to the window as an ordinary citizen typically would. 357 Ill. App.3d at 421, 293 Ill.Dec. 385, 828 N.E.2d 355. According to the appellate court, Officer Pate's angle of approach conveyed the following message to defendant: `I am interested in you and I will speak to you right now.' 357 Ill.App.3d at 421, 293 Ill.Dec. 385, 828 N.E.2d 355. The appellate court majority agreed with the dissenting justice's assertion that officers approach vehicles from the rear out of a concern for their own safety. The appellate court concluded, however, that officer safety does not immunize from constitutional scrutiny all actions taken in its name, and that Officer Pate's angle of approach showed that he was treating defendant as a dangerous subject. 357 Ill. App.3d at 422-23, 293 Ill.Dec. 385, 828 N.E.2d 355. As with the other two factors, the appellate court failed to cite any authority in support of its position. Defense counsel conceded at oral argument that he could cite no authority, other than the appellate court's 2-1 decision, for the proposition that a police officer effectuates a seizure by approaching a vehicle from the rear instead of from the side. We see nothing inherently coercive in Officer Pate's angle of approach, and we agree with the dissenting justice's observation that a private citizen's angle of approach to a vehicle would depend upon where he began his approach. In its amicus brief, the Fraternal Order of Police confirms that law enforcement officers are trained to approach automobiles from the rear driver's side because this method of approach provides the officer with the most protection. We disagree with the appellate court's conclusion that a police officer acts in a coercive manner simply because he approaches in a manner designed to enhance his own safety. Moreover, it is not true that Officer Pate's approach necessarily meant that he viewed defendant as a dangerous suspect. It seems obvious that officers are trained to approach all vehicles in this manner because they have no way of knowing when they will encounter a dangerous person. As with its position on the use of a flashlight, the appellate court would leave a police officer with a bad choice. Either he must stroll up to the side of the vehicle with no concern for his own safety, or he must approach from the rear driver's side and risk effectuating a detention that is not supported by a sufficient reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Assuming that the police will always take their own safety into account, the appellate court's position would mean that every approach of a police officer to a vehicle will constitute a seizure. This is exactly the kind of result that Justice Stewart warned against in Mendenhall: Moreover, characterizing every street encounter between a citizen and the police as a `seizure,' while not enhancing any interest secured by the Fourth Amendment, would impose wholly unrealistic restrictions upon a wide variety of legitimate law enforcement practices. The Court has on other occasions referred to the acknowledged need for police questioning as a tool in the effective enforcement of the criminal laws. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 554, 100 S.Ct. at 1877, 64 L.Ed.2d at 509. In sum, it is clear that Officer Pate did not effectuate a seizure of defendant before observing an open bottle and signs of defendant's intoxication. Rather, precedent shows that Officer Pate acted exactly as a well-trained police officer should when he wishes to question a person seated in a parked vehicle without effectuating a seizure. He drove past defendant's vehicle so as not to block it in its space. He did not turn on his overhead flashing lights to signal that defendant's compliance was expected. He did not use coercive language or a coercive tone of voice, he did not touch defendant, and he did not display his weapon. He approached from the rear driver's side, as he was trained to do, and he used a flashlight because it was nighttime. Objectively viewed, nothing Officer Pate did would communicate to a reasonable person, innocent of any wrongdoing, that he was not free to decline to answer Officer Pate's questions or otherwise go about his business. We reject the position of the appellate court that if an officer patrolling in the middle of the night sees something about a vehicle that appears out of the ordinary, he must walk casually up to the side window in the dark, with no concern for his own safety and no illumination, or be held to have committed a seizure. The touchstone of the fourth amendment is reasonableness ( United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 118, 122 S.Ct. 587, 591, 151 L.Ed.2d 497, 505 (2001)), and the consequences that would follow from the appellate court's opinion are not reasonable.