Test: Would a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances feel that he or she is free to leave? (Wilson v. Superior Court, supra, at p. 790, quoting from United States v. Mendenhall (1980) 446 U.S. 544, 554 [64 L.Ed.2nd 497, 509]; Desyllas v. Bernstine (9th Cir. 2003) 351 F.3rd 934, 940.)
It is not what the defendant himself believes or should believe. (In re Manual G., supra, at p. 821.)
If a reasonable person would not feel like he has a choice under the circumstances, then the person contacted is being detained, and absent sufficient legal cause to detain the person, it is an illegal detention. (People v. Bailey (1985) 176 Cal.App.3rd 402.)
"(T)he officer's uncommunicated state of mind and the individual citizen's subjective belief are irrelevant in assessing whether a seizure triggering Fourth Amendment scrutiny has occurred. (In re Christopher B. (1990) 219 Cal.App.3rd 455, 460.)" (In re Manual G., supra, at p. 821 see also Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806 [135 L.Ed.2nd 89].)
"The test is necessarily imprecise because it is designed to assess the coercive effect of police conduct, taken as a whole, rather than focus on particular details of that conduct in isolation." (People v. Verin (1990) 220 Cal.App.3rd 551 556.)
The "reasonable person" test presupposes an "innocent person." (Florida v. Bostick (1991) 501 U.S. 429, 438 [115 L.Ed.2nd 389, 400]; United States v. Drayton (2002) 536 U.S. 194, 202 [153 L.Ed.2nd 242, 252.)
Note: Courts tend to ignore the inherent coerciveness of a police uniform and/or badge, and the fact that most people are reluctant to ignore a police officer's questions.
back to top
