Pennsylvania DUI Attorney
Scope of Detention
It has been held that where there are "specific and articulable" facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the police may restrict an individual's freedom for a limited period of time in order to conduct an investigation. Commonwealth v. Toanone, 381 Pa. Super. 336, 341, 553 A.2d 998, 1000 (1989).
There are three relevant cognizable categories of interactions between persons and police: a mere encounter, an investigative detention, and a custodial detention or arrest. Commonwealth v. Polo, 563 Pa. 218, 759 A.2d 372, 375 (2000). A mere encounter need not be supported by any level of suspicion, and does not require a person to stop or respond. Id. An "investigative detention," or Terry stop, must be supported by reasonable suspicion; it subjects a person to a stop and a period of detention, but does not involve such coercive conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of an arrest. Id. An arrest or custodial detention must be supported by probable cause. Id.
Officer reintroducing questioning after returning defendant's documents and telling him he was free to leave constituted investigative detention; defendant walked from rear of car to car door when officer stopped him again, there was no precise end to traffic stop, there were two armed, uniformed police standing near defendant, who was alone and isolated outside car at night on rural, unlit road when he was asked if he would answer questions, police had activated flashing lights and bright white police spotlight, which was directed at car, defendant was not informed that he did not have to answer further questions, officer told defendant results of his criminal history check, accusing him of past drug activity, and defendant then was asked if there were controlled substances or paraphernalia in his car or on his person. Commonwealth v. Moyer, 954 A.2d 659 (Pa.Super.,2008).
A non-exclusive list of factors to be used in assessing whether police conducted a mere encounter or a constitutional seizure after completion of a traffic stop includes: 1) the presence or absence of police excesses; 2) whether there was physical contact; 3) whether police directed the citizen's movements; 4) police demeanor and manner of expression; 5) the location of the interdiction; 6) the content of the questions and statements; 7) the existence and character of the initial investigative detention, including its degree of coerciveness; 8) the degree to which the transition between the traffic stop/investigative detention and the subsequent encounter can be viewed as seamless, thus suggesting to a citizen that his movements may remain subject to police restraint; 9) the presence of an express admonition to the effect that the citizen-subject is free to depart is a potent, objective factor; and 10) whether the citizen has been informed that he is not required to consent to the search. Commonwealth v. Strickler, 563 Pa. 47, 757 A.2d 884 (2000), and Commonwealth v. Freeman, 563 Pa. 82, 757 A.2d 903 (2000).