Daniels v. Maldonado-Morin

Nebraska Advance Sheets 240 288 NEBRASKA REPORTS of the caller are cited as factors inconsistent with restraint. Id. We agree that these are relevant considerations. Given the voluntariness with which Avey returned to the scene and the facts surrounding the telephone call, in the pres- ent case, we conclude there was no seizure. Fourth Amendment protections were not triggered, and there was no constitutional violation requiring suppression of evidence. CONCLUSION We conclude that under the facts as found by the county court, Avey was not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes, and that…