Officer's "take-down" lights did not make officer's encounter with parked car a seizure

United States v. Tafuna, 2021 WL 3164039 (10th Cir. July 27, 2021) (UT): The panel held that a police officer had not unconstitutionally seized Tafuna before he found a firearm inside a car in which Tafuna was a passenger. Tafuna, his friend and two others were chatting in a car parked in the corner of a large apartment complex’s lot. Tafuna was in front passenger seat, his friend, the owner of the car, was in the driver’s seat and two others were in the back. It was around 1:00 a.m. An officer pulled up to the car with the front of his marked car pointed toward the driver’s door. He had the “takedown lights” on which shine brightly across the top of the car to illuminate the area in front of it. The officer got out of his car, walked to the driver’s side door and asked the driver and the others what they were doing. He also asked for their names and birth dates. While looking into the car he saw an open beer can in the center console next to Tafuna. The four told the officer they were “just hanging out and talking.” Tafuna gave his name and added that he was on parole and had a knife on him. The officer said he was going to run their names and he walked back to his car. This, led to that, and Tafuna was told to get out of the car. The officer patted him down and seized his knife. Then he searched the car and found a gun under the passenger seat. Tafuna admitted it was his. He was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal Tafuna argued the gun and his statement were the ill-gotten gains of the officer’s unfounded seizure of him. The panel disagreed. It said the officer’s interaction with Tafuna was consensual. When the officer parked his car as he did, a reasonable person would have believed he was free to ignore the officer and continue on with his business. (One wonders how that would have played out if the ‘reasonable person’ behind the wheel decided to drive off.) The officer had not driven up “aggressively” nor did he have his siren and emergency lights on. The way he parked still allowed the driver to drive away and did not impede Tafuna’s movement. The panel also said the takedown lights alone did not make the encounter a seizure. It is not “inherently coercive” for an officer to use those lights. They are necessary for an officer to “safely visit parked vehicles at night.” Additionally, the officer’s conduct outside the car did not turn the encounter into a detention. He walked up to the car and asked the occupants for their names and birth dates. It is not improper for an officer to “ask a few questions” and examine an individual’s identification without having any basis for suspecting criminal activity. Here, the officer did not say or imply that the four had to comply with his request. He delivered his request calmly, without raising his voice. Even though he did not tell Tafuna he had the right to terminate the encounter, that is just one factor in the Fourth Amendment analysis. All the other pertinent factors demonstrate this was a consensual encounter which Tafuna had a right, if he chose, to end. By the time the officer ordered Tafuna out of the car he knew he was on parole and under its terms he was not allowed to possess alcohol or weapons. He had cause then to detain Tafuna and search the car.