Identified As Driver Suspended

[Fuzzz]

i read taxing matters post that it was “casual” or consensual until the cop acted in a manner that made the op believe he was not free to go.[/FONT][/COLOR]

Not to muddy the waters but the Supreme Court has given some guidance on this too in Florida v Bostick. The case related to a consent search in the confines of a bus but the standard has been used in other cases dealing with consensual(casual) encounters, especially those with officers walking/driving up to subjects. Note that it is not based solely on the subject being "free to go".

One must not look at whether a party felt "free to leave," but whether a party felt free to decline or terminate the search encounter. The Court held that in the absence of intimidation or harassment, Bostick could have refused the search request. Moreover, the fact that he knew the search would produce contraband had no bearing on whether his consent was voluntarily obtained. The test of whether a "reasonable person" felt free to decline or terminate a search presupposes his or her innocence.

In this case it would depend on the OP feeling free to decline the officer's demand, or show of authority, to see his identification. I would assume the OP did not feel free to decline so it would then convert the encounter into a Fourth Amendment seizure regardless of whether he felt "free to leave" or not. Since the officer already had PC to detain him the argument is moot though.

[Guybrush]

Wait a minute...

...did the officer see the OP operate the vehicle on a public road or did he just see the OP filling the car?

[Taxing Matters]

Wait a minute...

...did the officer see the OP operate the vehicle on a public road or did he just see the OP filling the car?

Even if officer did not see the OP drive the car, if all the available facts would support the conclusion he had been driving on a suspended license that's going to be good enough. For example, if there were no passengers in the car and given that the car did not drive itself there, one could reasonably conclude the OP had to have driven it there. And if the cop also found the OP in possession of the keys to the car (e.g. in his pockets), well, that's even better.