United States v. Douglass, Veil V.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the officers’ use of a flashlight was insignificant and would not cause a reasonable person to feel compelled to remain given that it was 2 a.m. in a dark parking lot
• holding that officer’s use of flashlights was “insignificant” under free to leave test
• finding no error with the district court's determination that no seizure occurred when the suspect \still could have declined to answer [the officers'] questions and driven away\
• finding no error with the district court’s determination that no seizure occurred when the suspect “still could have declined to answer [the officers’] questions and driven away”
• finding officer’s activation of flashlight did not transform otherwise consensual encounter into a seizure
• rejecting an argument that the defendant was seized where the officers stood with flashlights on each side of the defendant’s car because the defendant “still could have declined to answer their questions and driven away”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).