Given the facts surrounding the subsequent interaction, we conclude that the driver and Appellant were subject to a second seizure. As noted, the driver and Appellant were stopped for a lawful detention resulting from the motor vehicle code violations. Because the trooper had accomplished the purpose of the stop, as indicated by his issuance of a warning and stating that the driver and Appellant were free to go, the driver would have been within his rights to drive away at that point. Nevertheless, the trooper’s subsequent actions were inconsistent with his statement that they were free to leave. After walking toward his cruiser, the trooper turned around and returned to the driver’s vehicle, approached the driver, and began to ask the driver additional questions. Moreover, when the trooper re-engaged the driver, the driver was still standing outside of his vehicle. N.T., 6/20/13, at 73. As this Court has noted, when a person is standing outside rather than inside his vehicle, he is less likely to believe that he can actually leave the area by entering the car and driving away. Commonwealth v. Kemp, 2008 PA Super 274, 961 A.2d 1247, 1254 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citing Moyer, 954 A.2d at 659).

Second Judicial District Attorney Kari Brandenburg says that she has personal safety concerns after making the decision to charge two Albuquerque police officers with murder.

“I fear for my safety because other Albuquerque Police Department officers have told me that I should,” Brandenburg said. “I don’t think they’re going to kill me, but I have been told to fear for my safety.”

District Judge Fernando Macias has decided the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office won’t have to release the work records of a slain deputy who was shot and killed by another deputy in Las Cruces last October.

Driving home when police pull me over. The officer starts asking strange questions about my parents--without asking for my license and registration. Then I tell him I'm not answering his questions and he tells me he'll tow my car. I then start recording. He gets angry...

We have reviewed this video. It has been the result of our official investigation that the dog was carrying a gun.

Officer was fearing for his life and believed the dog was a threat.

The dog may have had one of those cell phone guns we've been hearing so much about.

He furtively reached for his collar.

the urban gangbanging youth was carrying a gun.

Clearly that dog was going for that cop's taser. The part at the end that got cut off shows the cop go over and drop a taser.

...were now forced to deal with the distraction and unpredictability of having the subject's dog moving through the scene of this active encounter at a critical time.

“This nonsense that is going today on where police officers are being taunted by people and being provoked, let’s face it we’re all human beings, and eventually that emotion will break. And that’s what they’re trying to do,” he said, according to Raging Chicken Press.

...

“So, what I’ve talked to some of my colleagues and the senator [Senator Rafferty] is that we have a bill about taunting a police dog. It’s illegal. There should be out that you can’t taunt a police officer because you’re going to get those emotions up. I myself and Representative Vereb are looking at that bill to put it forward in the House, and I am sure the Senate will follow. Or at least support that bill.”

Los Angeles will become the largest city in the nation to equip all its patrol officers with body cameras, after a divided Los Angeles Police Commission on Tuesday gave its final approval during a heated debate that highlighted lingering concerns about how the cameras will be used.

The 3-1 vote that signed off on the LAPD’s rules for the devices comes as police departments across the nation are considering whether to use the body cameras to provide a better record of officers’ actions after a series of racially charged police killings.

But who will get to see the videos and when remains a divisive issue.

On Tuesday, two police commissioners got into a tense exchange over whether police officers should be allowed to review the footage before writing their reports or giving statements to internal investigators.

...

But LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said allowing officers to first look at the footage would help them “get to the truth of what occurs,” a key objective of using the body cameras. Beck said he doesn’t intend to make the footage public in the vast majority of cases, citing privacy issues and the fact that they could be used as evidence in criminal or civil cases.

Over Saltzman’s objections, a majority of the commission’s members voted in favor of Beck’s recommended policy. The ACLU then dropped its support for the camera program.

“It really falls short on most of the issues that we thought a body camera policy had to address,” said Peter Bibring, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU chapter.

Commission President Steve Soboroff said he understood the concerns but believed the policy addressed many of the issues raised during the last several months and could become a model for other law enforcement agencies.