State v. Canfield, 338 P.3d 166

This case is a remand from Canfield II to determine if defendant was unlawfully stopped under Article I, section 9.
Facts from Canfield I: officer observed defendant cross street, enter a car, car moved and parked, driver and defendant contacted, IDs requested, consent obtained for searches, pipe found, marijuana residue detected, driver’s marijuana found in car, defendant made incriminating statements, and defendant arrested for unlawful delivery.
The officer retained IDs for about 30 seconds, then returned them and asked about weapons and drugs.
The question is whether the encounter constituted a stop, given there was no reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
Prior Oregon authority distinguishes mere requests for identification from seizures, considering context and whether the person is free to leave.
The court concludes the encounter was not a stop and defendant was not seized at the time of consent to search.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a stop under Article I, section 9 when consent was given?	Canfield argued there was a seizure due to restraining conduct and investigative signals.	Canfield contends the officer’s actions transformed the encounter into a stop.	No stop occurred; encounter remained non-seizure.
Do Backstrand, Highley, and Anderson control whether a request for identification plus surrounding conduct constitutes a stop?	State argues those cases support no stop under these facts.	Defendant argues those cases show possible seizure under combined conduct.	The cited cases support no stop under the present facts; no seizure occurred.

State v. Backstrand, 354 Or 392 (Or. 2013) (identification requests can be non-seizures depending on context)
State v. Highley, 354 Or 459 (Or. 2013) (brief identifications with non-coercive context may not constitute a seizure)
State v. Anderson, 354 Or 440 (Or. 2013) (officers’ brief contact and inquiry can be non-seizure)
State v. Holmes, 311 Or 400 (Or. 1991) (police may approach and question without articulating suspicion)
State v. Gerrish, 311 Or 506 (Or. 1991) (flagging down a driver to request information is not a stop)
State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66 (Or. 1993) (police asking a defendant to dump bag contents is not a seizure)
State v. Painter, 296 Or 422 (Or. 1984) (taking and retaining identification can be seizure)
State v. Warner, 284 Or 147 (Or. 1978) (identification demand with return to leave can be seizure)
State v. Hall, 339 Or 7 (Or. 2005) (pending warrant check can elevate contact to seizure)
State v. Jacobus, 318 Or 234 (Or. 1993) (repeatedly ordering a passenger out can be a stop)