and continue on with his travel, and a reasonable officer would believe this defendant was voluntarily cooperating with the officer’s requests. Vargas-Miranda was not unlawfully seized when he responded to Deputy Sheriff Brown’s request to produce his drivers license and the vehicle information. U.S. v. Locklin, 943 F.2d 838 (8th Cir.1991)(reversing district court’s ruling suppressing evidence and holding that the presence of a marked police car and use of police car’s computer to check person’s name did not transform a consensual encounter into “seizure” where the incident occurred on public sidewalk, detectives made no demand, gave no intimidating commands, displayed no weapons, and used neither threats nor force). See also, United States v. Granillo, 288 F.3d 1071 (8th Cir.2002)(<HOLDING>). 2. Retaining driver’s license pending
holding that defendants disobedience cannot have been knowing and wilful if officer has not made clear to defendant that he or she was compelled to obey holding that there was no show of authority when two officers repeatedly asked an individual where is your girls house but where the two officers were still in their car neither officer displayed his weapon there was no physical touching and no indication as to the language or tone of the officers voice that might have signaled a clear show of authority holding that asking defendant for identification was not a seizure absent evidence that the officer used language or a tone of voice indicating that compliance might be compelled holding that trial court properly suppressed evidence where officer did not possess articulable and reasonable grounds to suspect that defendant violated motor vehicle code the officer did not see defendant drive erratically commit a traffic violations or engage in any conduct indicating that he was under the influence of alcohol recognizing that a trial judge must be vigilant not to let his or her tone or gestures indicate the judges view