Summary
The North Dakota Supreme Court held that the defendant was seized when a police vehicle parked directly behind his car and activated its emergency lights. The court reversed and remanded because the district court incorrectly found that no stop occurred and had not addressed whether the seizure was supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Thompson was seized when the officer parked directly behind his vehicle and activated the patrol car’s emergency lights.
- Whether the seizure was supported by reasonable and articulable suspicion.
Holdings
- Thompson was seized because a reasonable person would not believe he was free to leave when a police car was parked directly behind his vehicle with its emergency lights activated.
Key quotations
“We conclude Thompson was seized because a reasonable person would not believe he is free to leave when a police ear is parked directly behind him with the police car’s emergency lights activated.” (¶ 10)
“A seizure occurs ... when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” (¶ 9)
Factual background
Around 2:00 a.m., Officer Dan Poppe observed Thompson’s vehicle traveling substantially below the speed limit and followed it into a parking lot. After Thompson parked, Poppe positioned his patrol car directly behind Thompson’s vehicle and activated the patrol car’s emergency lights when Thompson’s reverse lights came on. Poppe approached Thompson, detected the odor of alcohol, and Thompson was later arrested for driving under the influence and driving under suspension.
Procedural history
A complaint was filed charging Thompson with driving under the influence and driving under suspension. After pleading not guilty, Thompson moved to suppress evidence, arguing that he had been illegally stopped; the district court denied the motion. Thompson then entered a conditional guilty plea under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11, judgment was entered, and he timely appealed.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded for further proceedings. The Supreme Court declined to decide in the first instance whether reasonable and articulable suspicion supported the seizure.