Brown, J,
Here, the record reveals that the vehicle in which Rutledge was seated was parked at a residence and the keys were on the passenger side floor. Deputy Hurst did not pull his vehicle directly behind Rutledge’s vehicle. The following exchange occurred during cross-examination of Deputy Hurst:
Q: You were not able to observe, uh, uh, anybody’s, uh, head in the vehicle as you pulled up on it. Is that correct? In other words, . . .
A: Correct.
Q: There would have been not only tinted windows but there would have been head rests, etcetera. Correct?
A: Uh, I didn’t pull up behind the vehicle, sir.
Q: So you never actually got up behind it.
A: Not when I stopped my vehicle. I was behind it on the roadway but after I turned around, I pulled up perpendicular to the vehicle.
Transcript at 50. Deputy Hurst did not activate his red and blue lights. He observed Rutledge sitting in the driver’s seat “lying side wise over the . . . center console of the vehicle with his head resting on the passenger seat.” Id. at 37. Deputy Hurst tapped on the driver side window and attempted to speak with Rutledge, and eventually Rutledge sat up. To the extent Rutledge argues that the minivan door was either opened by Deputy Hurst, “commanding Rutledge to exit” or by Rutledge “suggesting submission and an acknowledgement that he was not going to be allowed to leave,” Appellant’s Brief at 12, we observe that Rutledge’s trial counsel asked Reserve Deputy Brinson whether Deputy Hurst had to open the door to arouse Rutledge or just tap on the window, and Deputy Brinson answered: “He was tapping on the window.” Transcript at 58. Deputy Brinson also testified that Deputy Hurst and Rutledge had a brief discussion before Rutledge exited the vehicle. As for Deputy Brinson’s presence at the scene, we note that he went to the back corner of the minivan. Neither lights nor siren were activated, no weapons were pulled, nor did any touching of Rutledge occur. The deputies did not initiate a traffic stop and merely approached the car, and Rutledge’s freedom of movement was not impaired.
Given these facts, we cannot say that Deputy Hurst’s approach to the parked vehicle in which Rutledge was an occupant and initial contact with Rutledge constituted an investigatory stop or a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The record supports the conclusion that the initial encounter here was consensual and thus fell outside the ambit of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.
. . . .
The record reveals that: (1) the encounter occurred around midnight or in the early morning hours; (2) it appeared to Deputy Hurst that the driver of the minivan was having a hard time keeping the vehicle on the roadway and that he jerked the wheel back multiple times, Transcript at 49; (3) after Deputy Hurst began following Rutledge, Rutledge pulled into a residential driveway that did not match the address related to the license plate; (4) Rutledge stayed only a very short time before exiting the driveway; (5) Rutledge continued driving before pulling into a second driveway that was also not the address related to the license plate; (6) Deputy Hurst and Reserve Deputy Brinson did not observe any other vehicles, anything happening around the minivan, or any dome light illuminate; and (7) Deputy Hurst observed Rutledge “lying side wise over the . . . center console of the vehicle with his head resting on the passenger seat.” Transcript at 37. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the facts known to Deputy Hurst together with the reasonable inferences arising from such facts would cause an ordinarily prudent person to believe that criminal activity may be afoot, thus justifying an investigatory stop. The stop was not a violation of Rutledge’s Fourth Amendment rights and therefore the trial court did not err in admitting evidence seized as a result of the encounter.
. . . .
. . . Under these circumstances, we conclude that Deputy Hurst’s approach and initial contact with Rutledge was minimally intrusive and did not violate Rutledge’s rights against unreasonable search or seizure under Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. . . . .
Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.