United States v. Sanford, 2024 WL 3419656 (8th Cir. 2024)
In Waterloo, Iowa, a strip club owner sent a text message to a police officer reporting two men smoking and drinking in a car outside the club. The officer replied with a request for a vehicle description, but she did not see the reply until after arriving at the club. There, she saw the men (Bruce Sanford and Houston Simmons) in a parked Kia SUV near the entrance where the club owner was standing. Sandford was in the driver’s seat.
The officer turned on her amber warning lights and parked in the traffic lane, next to the Kia. Another officer arrived and stopped his vehicle in the traffic lane behind the first officer. The Kia was positioned with the parking lot entrance behind it, so Sanford could have backed up and driven forward into the street (past the parked police cars). Alternatively, he might have backed into the driveway and turned to head in the opposite direction.
The officers walked up to the car and smelled marijuana. An officer told Sanford, “your entire car smells like there’s pounds of weed in it.” Subsequently searching the car, the officers found marijuana, cash, a vacuum sealer, a vacuum sealer bag containing marijuana and a handgun. Both men were charged with possessing a firearm after being convicted of a felony.
Both Sanford and Simmons filed motions to suppress the evidence, arguing they were unlawfully seized when the officers blocked their car — before the officers smelled the marijuana. After examining video and photographs of the scene, the trial court ruled the Kia was not completely blocked and could have moved. The trial judge also found the officers did not park their cars with the intent to seize the Kia because neither officer knew which vehicle was the subject of the club owner’s report at the time they arrived and parked. Thus, the men were not seized before the officers smelled marijuana. The court denied the motions to suppress; Sanford and Simmons appealed.
Sanford and Simmons again argued the officers blocked their exit, thus seizing them before smelling the marijuana. The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s factual determinations to the contrary. The court would have been much more receptive to the claim that the men were seized if the officers had completely cut off any route for Sanford to drive away.
Get the Xiphos law enforcement legal update delivered to your inbox: SUBSCRIBE NOW!
Sanford and Simmons also argued a reasonable person in their position would not have felt free to leave upon seeing armed officers and flashing lights. Courts consider a several factors in determining whether a person is seized, including whether officers position themselves or their vehicle in a way to limit a person’s freedom of movement. Courts also consider the presence of several officers, their display of weapons, physical touching of persons claiming to be seized, the use of language or intonation indicating compliance is necessary (remember: Talk nice, think mean!), whether an officer holds on to the person’s identification or property, or whether the officer states or implies the person is the focus of a specific investigation.
The appellate court held a reasonable person in Sanford’s and Simmons’s position would have felt free to leave. The fact that the officers arrived at the club in uniform with holstered guns and turned on the warning lights was “insufficient to make a reasonable person believe they would not be free to leave the area of the club.”
