Cited by

(explaining that a police officer’s use of their emergency lights usually signals that they are seizing a person for an investigatory stop).

(“A reasonable person would have assumed that the officer was not doing anything other than checking to see what was going on and to offer help if needed.”).

(holding that the standard is always whether “the conduct of the police would communicate to a reasonable person in the defendant’s physical circumstances an attempt by the police to capture or seize” and that when an officer approaches to offer help, a reasonable person would not feel seized).

(discussing a similar question in the context of emergency vehicle lights).

To decide whether there was a seizure, a court must consider “whether, looking at all of the facts, the conduct of the police would communicate to a reasonable person in the defendant’s physical circumstances an attempt by the police to capture or seize or otherwise to significantly intrude on the person’s freedom of movement.” ; accord United States v. Mendenhall , 446 U.S. 544, 554-55 (1980).

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

The Minnesota Supreme Court addr essed this very question in State v. Hanson

(noting that an officer’s use of flashing squad lights in many situations “would signal to a reasonable person that the officer is attempting to seize the person for investigative purposes”).

4 In support of its argument regarding the use of emergency ligh ts, a case where the supreme co urt held that a police officer’s use of flashing red lights when pulling up and stopping behind a car on the shoulder of a highway at night did not render the encounter a s eizure.

(Hanson I), rev’d, (Hanson II).

This principle is clearly stated in the supreme court ’s (Hanson II).

5 he was not free to leave.” E.D.J., d at 783; see State v. Cripps , d 388, 391 (Minn. 1995) (stating that a seizure occurs when the circumstances show that a reasonable person wo uld have believed that he was neither free to disre gard the police questions nor free to end the encounter); State v. Hanson , (“[T]he question to be asked by the reviewing court is whether, looking at all of the facts, the conduct of the police would communicate to a reason able person in the defendant’s physical cir

(stating that a seizure occurs when, “looking at all of the facts, the conduct of the police would communicate to a reasonable person in the defendant’s physical circumstances an attempt by the police to capture or seize or otherwise to significantly intrude on the person’s freedom of movement”)

Unlike a squad car’s red or blue emergency lights—the use of which frequently (but not always) communicates a seizure, (“A driver confronted with a trailing squad car with flashing red lights inevitably feels duty bound to submit to this show of authority by pulling over.”), (deeming erroneous a holding “that whenever an officer turns on the squad car’s flashing red lights before getting out and approaching an already stopped car, the officer turns the encounter into a seizure”)—white spotlights

A reasonable person would have assumed that the officer was not doing anything other than checking to see what was 4 going on and to offer help if needed.” –220 (Minn. 1993).

“[A] person has been seized if in view of all of the 13 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 the question to be asked is whether, “looking at all of the facts, the conduct of the police would communicate to a reasonable person in the defendant’s physical circumstances an attempt by the police to capture or seize or otherwise to significa

A reasonable person would have assumed that the officer was not doing anything other than checking to see what was going on and to offer help if needed.” -20 (Minn. 1993).

(holding that officer “boxing in [suspect’s] car, then activating his squad’s flashing red lights and honking his horn” created a seizure); -20 (Minn.1993) (concluding there was no seizure where officer, suspecting no criminal activity, activated flashing red lights upon approaching already stopped car).

220 & n. 1 (Minn.1993) (citing United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554-55 , 100 S.Ct.

220 & n. 1 (Minn.1993) (citing United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554-55 , 100 S.Ct.