Cited by

“[A] person has been seized if[,] in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that [they were] neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter.”

Under the Minnesota Constitution, “a person has been seized if in view of all 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.”

Jacox-Mann contends that the officer did not articulate “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.”

A seizure occurs “when the officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a C-1 citizen.”

“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.’” d 388, 391 (Minn. 1995) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 19 n.16).

“To reasonably suspect a person of criminal activity, the officer’s suspicion must be based on specific, articulable facts.”

Under the Minnesota Constitution, “a person has been seized 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.”

And to establish reasonable suspicion, “[t ]he 10 officer must be able to articulate at the omnibus hearing that he or she had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.” State v. Cripps , (emphasis added).

Therefore, Carlson contends that the officer did not articulate “a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.”

But, without violating the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, “[a law- enforcement] officer may stop and temporarily seize a person to investigate that person for criminal wrongdoing 7 if the officer reasonably suspects that person of criminal activity.”

Under the Minnesota Constitution, a person has been seized if the circumstances as a whole would have led a reasonable person to believe they were not free to “disregard the police questions” or “terminate the encounter.” (discussing Minn. Const. art. 1, § 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.” (quotations omitted).

(“The officer must be able to articulate at the omnibus hearing that he or she had a particularized and 6 objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.”).

“Not all contact between citizens and police constitutes a seizure.”

A seizure occurs when “in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable 5 person would have believed that he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter.” (citing Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497-98 (1983), and United States v. Mendenhall , 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980)).

For the purposes of the Minnesota Constitution, “a person has been seized if in view of all 5 of the circumstances surrounding the incide nt, a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter.”

An officer seeking to expa nd the duration or scope of the traffic stop beyond its original justificati on may only do so if “he or she had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.” Diede, d at 843 ().

7 (noting that r easonable suspicion must be “based on specific, articulable facts” that allow the officer “to articulate at the omnibus hearing that he or she had a p articularized and objective basis for suspecting the seize d person of criminal activity”).

that he or she had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.’ ” d 836, 842–43 (Minn. 2011) ().

“A police officer may stop and temporarily seize a person to investigate that person for criminal wrongdoing if the officer reasonably susp ects that person of criminal activity.”

Under that standard, “ a person has been seized 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.”

For example, although California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 111 S. Ct. 1547 (1991) held that a seizure occurs when police use physical for ce or when a person submits to a show of 5 ().

Under the Minnesota Constitution, “a person has been seized 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.” .

To determine whether a person has been seized within the meani ng of the Minnesota Constitution, reviewing courts examine whether, “in view of all of the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed th at he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter.” see also E.D.J., d at 780.4 4 The United States Supreme Court held in California v. Hodari D. that a seizure occurs under the Fourth Amendment when the police us

A seizure occurs “when [an] officer, by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen.” d 779, 781 (Minn. 1993) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 n.16, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1879 n.16 (1968)); see also State v. Harris

nder the Minnesota Constitution, which o ffers more protection than the Fourth Amendment, a seizure occurs when, “in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have belie ved that he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter.” 3 (); see Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497-98 (1983); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980).

A person is seized when “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.” State v. Cripps

“The reasonable person standard is an objective standard ,” which ensures that the scope of the 10 constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures “does not vary with a particular person’s subjective state of mind .” See State v. Cripps , , 391 (Minn. 1995) (analyzing whether person was seized).

Reasonable suspicion must be “based on specific, articulable facts” that allow the officer “to articulate at the omnibus hearing that he or she had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.” d 388, 391 (Minn. 1995).

An officer may “ stop and temporarily seize a person to investigate that person for criminal wrongdoing if the officer reasonably suspects that person of crimin al activity.”

A person is seized only if, given the totality of the circumstances, “a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was neither free to disregard the police questions nor free to terminate the encounter.” State v. Cripps

that he or she had a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the seized person of criminal activity.’” -43 (Minn. 2011) ().

A police officer may “temporarily seize a person to investigate t hat person for criminal wrongdoing if the officer reasona bly suspects that person of cr iminal activity.”

“A police officer may stop and temporarily seize a person to investigate that person for criminal wrongdoing if the officer reasonably suspects that person of criminal activity.”

“[A] person has been seized if in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he or she was neither free to disregard t he police questions nor free to terminate the encounter.” State v. Cripps

at 509 (citing State v. Cripps , ) (emphasis added).