State v. Wyman
197 Ariz. 10, 3 P.3d 392 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A consensual police encounter becomes a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes when an officer's persistent and repeated requests to talk, after an individual has ignored initial requests and attempted to walk away, would communicate to a reasonable person that they are not free to leave.
Facts:
- A Wal-Mart clerk informed a uniformed police officer that two men, appellant and Lorenzo Jackson, were 'acting nervous' after seeing his patrol car.
- The two men walked away from the store, looking over their shoulders at the officer.
- The officer drove his patrol car near the men, exited the vehicle, and yelled, 'Hey, can I talk to you?'
- Appellant and Jackson ignored the officer and continued walking away.
- The officer yelled his request to talk to them at least two more times after they had already ignored him.
- Only after the officer 'had yelled several times at them,' did appellant and Jackson stop, turn around, and walk back to the patrol car.
- The officer asked appellant if he had any weapons, and appellant admitted to having a handgun in his pants pocket.
- The officer then searched appellant and found a pistol.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant was charged with possession of a firearm by a prohibited possessor in the trial court.
- Appellant filed a motion to suppress the handgun and his statements, arguing they were obtained through an unconstitutional seizure.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress, finding the encounter was consensual until appellant admitted to carrying a weapon.
- A jury found appellant guilty of the charge.
- The trial court sentenced appellant to ten years in prison.
- Appellant appealed his conviction to the Arizona Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's repeated request for an individual to stop and talk, after the individual has clearly indicated a desire to leave by ignoring the officer and walking away, constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment when the officer lacks reasonable suspicion of criminal activity?
Opinions:
Majority - Espinosa, Chief Judge
Yes, the officer's conduct constituted a seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. A consensual encounter transforms into a seizure when, under the totality of the circumstances, police conduct would communicate to a reasonable person that they are not free to ignore the police and go about their business. Although the officer's initial request was permissible, appellant and Jackson demonstrated their desire not to engage by walking away. When the officer 'incessantly repeated his request' despite this clear refusal to cooperate, he was making a show of authority that indicated compliance was required. This persistence transformed the encounter into a seizure. Because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity—as 'acting nervous' and walking away from an officer is insufficient—the seizure was unconstitutional. The evidence obtained as a result of this illegal seizure must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the boundary between a consensual encounter and a Fourth Amendment seizure, establishing that police persistence can convert a voluntary interaction into a non-consensual detention. It reinforces the principle that a citizen's attempt to terminate an encounter by walking away is a right that police must respect, absent reasonable suspicion. Future courts will likely scrutinize the number and nature of an officer's requests after a citizen has indicated a desire to leave to determine if a seizure occurred. The ruling protects a pedestrian's right to be let alone and prevents police from achieving a stop through sheer persistence where legal grounds for one do not exist.
