Court Opinion

ID: 9621644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:02:25.729933+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:20.153475
License: Public Domain

Judge LANSING,
Specially Concurring.
I concur m the foregoing opinion, but write separately to stress the narrowness of our holdmg, which is confined to the particular circumstances presented here. We have held that the officer’s use of his emergency lights, which effectuated a seizure in the course of a community caretaking task, was reasonable for safety purposes and because the emergency lights served the further purpose of informing Míreles that the veMcle that had stopped behind him late at a night was a police vehicle. We might reach a different conclusion if this stop had occurred during the daytime when use of the patrol car’s amber caution lights alone might be sufficient to alert oncoming motorists and when Míreles would have been able to see from the patrol car’s marMngs that it was a police vehicle.