State v. Backstrand, 313 P.3d 1084

Deputy Gerba monitored an adult store for prior robberies and briefly engaged inside with defendant and his girlfriend, asking ages and obtaining driver licenses.
Gerba checked only license validity with dispatch, returning licenses after 10–15 seconds; dispatch later reported defendant’s license was suspended and defendant on probation elsewhere.
Following this, Gerba pursued and stopped defendant for driving with a suspended license, arresting him; defendant was later charged with driving while revoked.
Defendant moved to suppress identity and license-status information as unlawful seizure; trial court denied suppression.
Court of Appeals held there was a seizure or, at minimum, significant restraint, and remanded to determine subjective restraint; this court granted review.
Majority held that requesting/verifying identification does not, by itself, constitute a seizure under Article I, section 9, and reversed the Court of Appeals; suppression denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does requesting and verifying identification trigger a seizure under Article I, section 9?	Defendant argues the encounter was a seizure; the state contends not.	Backstrand contends no seizure occurred.	No seizure occurred; identification request/verification alone are not seizures.
Is verification of identification a per se seizure or a factor in seizure analysis?	Defendant asserts verification constitutes restraint.	Painter/ Painter line suggests retention/continued investigation may seize.	Verification alone is not a seizure; only with additional coercive restraint would seizure arise.
May police rely on community caretaking to justify the encounter without seizure under Article I, section 9?	Defendant asserts caretaking does not justify nonseizure when investigating identity.	Holmes/Fair framework allows caretaking to justify brief encounters.	Community caretaking may justify limited actions, but must still meet constitutional standards; in this case, no seizure occurred.
What framework governs whether a police encounter is a seizure under Oregon law after Ashbaugh and Holmes?	State argues current test suffices; defendant urges alternative framing.	Holmes/Ashbaugh provide the standard; the majority’s approach is misaligned.	Court reaffirmed Holmes/Ashbaugh framework; not distilling to merely ‘feel free to leave’.

State v. Backstrand, 231 Or App 621 (2009) (discussed timing of the stop and when a seizure occurs in context of a stop and inquiries)
State v. Fair, 353 Or 588 (2013) (stop/detain based on reasonable suspicion of being a material witness or victim; verification of identity relevant to investigation)
State v. Watson, 353 Or 768 (2013) (stop for traffic offense may involve asking for ID and checking driving privileges)
State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297 (2010) (refined seizure test under Article I, section 9; rejected subjective belief prong)
State v. Holmes, 311 Or 400 (1991) (established three-category framework for encounters; seizure requires coercive restraint beyond ordinary social contact)
State v. Hall, 339 Or 7 (2005) (police seizure when identifying information is obtained and warrant check requested)
State v. Painter, 296 Or 422 (1984) (retention of identification and ongoing inquiry can constitute seizure)
Ehly, 317 Or 66 (1993) (verbal requests not seizures unless circumstances convey restraint)