People v. Luedemann

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the standard is not whether an individual “practically” or “realistically” felt free to leave
• explaining that this is the appropriate test for a person seated in a parked car who is approached by a police officer
• noting that the standard is not whether an individual \practically\ or \realistically\ felt free to leave
• recognizing that “ ‘the mere approach and questioning of [persons seated within parked vehicles] does not constitute a seizure. *** [However,] the encounter becomes a seizure if the officer orders the suspect to “freeze” or to get out of the car.’ ” (Emphasis added.
• finding that the officer’s act of shining a flashlight on the vehicle as he approached was not “coercive, but *** merely incident to a police officer’s performance of his job after dark”
• adding that the so-called “community caretaking” doctrine is analytically distinct from consensual encounters because it is invoked to validate a search or seizure only after the determination of whether a search or seizure had taken place

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).