By: dmc-admin//July 15, 2002//
Accordingly, it was error to suppress the drugs and the gun found in defendant’s car.
“That the officer had just invited Williams to “get on [his] way” strongly influences our conclusion. The officer’s words and actions, considered as a whole, communicated permission to leave, as the traffic stop was over. The officer did nothing, verbally or physically, to compel Williams to stay. That Williams stayed, and answered the questions, and gave consent to search, is not constitutionally suspect, and does not give rise to an inference that he must have been compelled to do so. …
“Accordingly, we conclude that the totality of the circumstances establish that a reasonable person would have felt free to decline the officer’s questions and leave the scene, or otherwise terminate the encounter. Williams was free to leave when Fetherston returned his driver’s license and rental paperwork, gave him the warning citation, and said ‘we’ll let you get on your way then okay.’ Fetherston’s subsequent questioning, considered in the context of all the circumstances and against the objective, ‘reasonable person’ standard, did not constitute a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.”
The decision of the court of appeals is reversed.
DISSENTING OPINION: Abrahamson, Ch. J. “I agree with the circuit court and the court of appeals in concluding that a reasonable motorist under the circumstances of the present case would not have felt free to refuse to answer the officer’s questions and would not have felt free to get into his or her car and leave the scene.9 It makes no difference whether the seizure is conceived of as an unreasonable extension of the initial traffic stop, or alternatively, a second seizure beginning with the state trooper’s line of questioning after issuing the warning citation.”
Court of Appeals, Sykes, J.
Attorneys:
For Appellant: Stephen W. Kleinmaier, James E. Doyle, Madison
For Respondent: Thomas E. Knothe, La Crosse