Cited by

An arrest occurs when a reasonable person would conclude that they are both under arrest and not free to leave because “a person who is being detained temporarily is not free to leave during the period of detention, yet that does not convert the detention into an arrest.” –20 (Minn. 1990).

(“The officers had the choice of leaving the men in the stopped car, but that would have been foolish because the officers were investigating the possible involvement of the men in a burglary and the men might have had one or more weapons in the car.”).

(quotation omitted); see also Moffatt, d 116, 119 (Minn. 1990) (“The fact that the police in a given case might have investigated the case in a different way arguably taking less time does not mean that the police acted unreasonably.”).

The supreme court later clarified that an arrest does not occur unless the person believes that he is both under arrest and not free to leave because “a person who is being detained temporarily is not free to leave during the period of detention, yet that does not convert the detention into an arrest.” -20 (Minn. 1990) ; see also Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 125, 120 S. Ct. 673, 676 (2 000); Royer, 460 U.S. at 497-98, 103 S. Ct. at 1324; In re Welfare of E.D.J.

.” see also State v. Moffatt , (holding that a stop was not deemed a de facto arrest even when officers frisked the suspects for weapons and placed them in separate squad cars).

A plaintiff must meet both prongs of this test “because a person who is being detained temporarily is not free to leave during the period of detention, yet that does not convert the detention into an arrest.” -20 (Minn. 1990).

However, a temporary detainment wherein a person is not free to leave during the period of detention “does not convert the detention into an arrest.”

119- 20 (Minn. 1990) (holding that hour-long detention in squad cars was investigative seizure, and not de facto arrest, in part because suspects wer e told that they were being detained and were not under arrest).

State v. Moffatt , , 119-20 (Minn. 1990).

not be characterized as a de facto arrest if “the police diligentl y pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions quickly, during which time it was necessary to detain the defendant.” United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686, 105 S. Ct. 1568, 1575 (1985); see also Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 506, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 1329 (1983) ; d 116, 119 (Minn. 1990); State v. Beckman

The “not free to leave language” is not dispositive , because someone being detained temporarily “is not free to leave” but “that does not convert the detention into an arrest.” d 116, 120 (Minn. 1990).

The supreme court has noted that “the ‘not free to leave’ language is unfortunate, because a person who is being detained temporarily is not free to leave during the period of detention, yet that does not convert the detention into an arrest.”

“[A] person who is being detained temporarily is not free to leave during the period of detention, yet that does not [necessarily] convert the detention into an arrest.” 6 (Minn. 1990).

(summarizing that whether the duration of a stop is reasonable “all depends on the facts and circumstances”).

(finding a one-hour detainment in squad car not too long when officers acted reasonably and diligently); United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685, 105 S. Ct. 1568, 1575 (1985) (stating there is no bright-line rule regarding an appropriate length of an investigation detention).

A traffic stop may continue as long as reasonable suspicion remains, provided that police act “diligently and reasonably.” (stating that the reasonableness of the length of a traffic stop “depends on the facts and circumstances” and that “[s]ometimes a 20-minute detention will be too long, sometimes a detention of more than an hour will not be unreasonable”); see also United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 , 105 S.Ct.

(discussing the increase in "the degree of objective suspicion” that occurred because of the observations made by the officers during the course of a Terry stop).

99) (holding that drugs found by a police officer in the back of a squad car after release of a person suspected of a crime that was neither serious nor violent should have been suppressed because the state failed to demonstrate that this increase in "the intrusive nature - of the stop” was reasonably necessary for officer safety or to prevent the suspect from fleeing); (distinguishing the investigation of burglary from that of a petty offense in determining the reasonableness of the duration of

Law enforcement may continue the detention “as long as the reasonable suspicion for the detention remains * * * provided they act diligently and reasonably.” Smallwood, d at 155 ().

Police may continue the detention “as long as the reasonable suspicion for the detention remains * * * provided they act diligently and reasonably.”

this court held one hour not too long a time of detention where three suspects were stopped within two blocks of a burglary in the middle of the night with no other cars around, reasonable suspicion was not dispelled, and the officers acted reasonably and diligently under the circumstances.