Cited by

20, 1990), such as activating 6 emergency lights and using a squad car’s horn, - 43 (Minn. App. 1988); ordering a person out of their vehicle and “summoning ” them to provide identification and answer questions, Day, d at 407; pounding on a driver’s side window and opening their door, or using “a squad car to block a parked vehicle,” id.

d 18, 23 (Minn. App. 2005).

“In [considering] whether a seizure has occurred, the court determines whether a police officer’s actions would lead a reasonable person under the same circumstances to believe that [they were] not free to leave.”

“In [considering] whether a seizure has occurred, the court determines whether a police officer’s actions would lead a reasonable person under the same circumstances to believe that [they were] not free to leave.”

to support his argument that, because Officer 1 parked his squad car behind appellant’s vehicle, blocking him in, he was seized.

“[T]he use of a squad car to block a parked vehicle generally constitutes a seizure.”

See, (holding an officer opening a vehicle door was reasonable where the vehicle was covered in snow and the officer could not see the passenger); (holding an officer opening a vehicle door was reasonable when responding to a call that someone was asleep or unconscious in a parking lot); WL 233937, at *1, *3-4 (Minn. App. Feb.

“[T]he use of a squad car to block a parked vehicle generally constitutes a seizure.”

he car dealership] and the presence of the vehicle in the early morning hours in a commercial area with no residences on a road that does not connect to another roadway provide an objective circumstances surrounding the incident, a re asonable person would have believed that he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter”); (holding that defendant was seized when officer activ ated squad car’s lights and pulled into parking lot where defendant wa

“In determining whether a seizure has occurred, the court determines whether a police officer’s actions would lead a reasonable person under the same circumstances to believe that she was not free to leave.”

6 (Minn. App. 2005 ); Klotz v. Comm’r of Pub.

IV; Minn. Const. art. I, § 10; .

See, d 18, 23 (Minn. App. 2005) (applying exception to officer’s welfare check of driver sleeping or unconscious at wheel to ensure driver “does not require additional medical assistance”); see also, e.g., Ries, d at 623-24 (applying exception when subject of warrantless search intoxicated and asleep on couch with g

3 (determining whether a seizure occurred based on whether a reasonable person under the same circumstances would believe he “was not free to leave”).

State v. Hanson , 2 2 upon which Schreyer relies, is not to the contrary.

Still, should lead us to conclude that Officer Schleichert’s use of his emergency lights constituted a seizure.

body language communicated that he did not wish to speak with the officer” and that he “gave the officer the cold shoulder.” But the officer knew only that appell ant had driven his car into a snowbank from which it needed to be towed; he did not know whether appellant, who repeatedly turned away but did not 1 to argue that, “like Lopez, and unlike Overvig, appellant’s movement was obstructed by the snow and the truck in front of him.” But Lopez does not support appellant’s position; in that cas

To determine if a seizure has taken place, this court looks to “whether a police officer’s actions would lead a reasonable person under the same circumstances to believe that she was not free to leave.” State v. Lopez

See Klamar, d at 692 -94; Kozak v. Commissioner of Pub.

at 795-96 (concluding that the appellant was seized when the officer activated his emergency lights and the appellant’s vehicle was directly in front of the officer’s squad vehicle); (concluding that 7 the appellant was seized when the officer activated his emergency lights and partially blocked the forward movement of her vehicle).

(noting that an officer’s use of physical force or show of authority may constitute a seizure); (determining that officer seized driver by partially blocking vehicle, activating emergency lights, pounding on driver’s window, and opening driver’s door).1 1 Appellant relies on two unpublished cases to support his seizure argument.

(concluding that officer seized appellant by partially blocking appellant’s car with the squad car, activating emergency lights, ordering appellant to unlock the door, and 5 opening the car door).

This court’s caselaw recognizes that an officer may seize a person by using a squad car to block or partially block a suspect’s vehicle, Klotz v. Comm’r of Pub.

(the use of a squad car to block a parked vehicle generally constitutes a seizure); Sanger, d at 242 (stating that the officer, “by his own admission, parked his squad car in such a position that [the defendant] could not exit”).

Instead, a seizure occurs if, “in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter.” (stating that “[i]n determining whether a seizure has occurred, the court determines whether a police officer’s actions would lead a reasonable 5 person under the same circumstances to believe that she was not free to leave”).

23 (Minn. App. 2005) (stating that a warrantless seizure may be justified in emergency situations).

A seizure occurs if, “in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter.” see United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 1877 (1980); (stating that “[i]n determining whether a seizure has occurred, the court determines whether a police officer’s actions would lead a reasonable person under the same circumstances to believe

“Generally an officer responding to a call to investigate someone unconscious or sleeping in a vehicle is justified in investigating the welfare of that individual.”