State v. Story

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I believe that the majority did not fully address the defendant’s first claim. The defendant claims that he was unlawfully seized in violation of the fourth amendment to the United States constitution1 because he was detained after the purpose of the stop was effectuated without further justification.2 I believe that the majority improperly defers to the trial court’s finding that “[a]t the time Trooper [James] Keeney asked for permission to search the car, the *742defendant was not in custody and would have been free to leave if he had…