331 P.3d 1012
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Deputy Groom responded to a report of a pickup stuck in a ditch outside defendant’s home; truck was registered to defendant.
- Groom (in uniform) went to the door, spoke with defendant’s wife and doubted her account; a second deputy briefly spoke with the caller.
- Groom saw defendant inside, asked him (defendant is hard of hearing) to come outside; defendant complied and went onto the porch.
- Groom walked with defendant into a nearby flat area to conduct field sobriety tests, read Miranda warnings, then asked for consent to pat down for weapons.
- During the consensual-seeming patdown, Groom found keys to the truck and later obtained incriminating statements; defendant was arrested for DUII.
- Trial court denied suppression; the Court of Appeals majority reversed, holding the totality of circumstances amounted to a stop under Article I, section 9, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officer’s actions constituted a seizure/stop under Article I, §9 and the Fourth Amendment | The contact (knock, ask to come out, read Miranda, request patdown) did not restrict liberty; a reasonable person would feel free to leave | The combination of approaching the home, summoning defendant outside, escorting him to a testing area, giving Miranda warnings, and requesting a patdown conveyed a show of authority amounting to a stop that lacked reasonable suspicion | Majority: Under totality of circumstances, officer’s conduct was a show of authority; a reasonable person would have felt significantly deprived of liberty — encounter was a stop; suppression warranted (reversed and remanded) |
| Whether Miranda warnings are relevant to the seizure analysis | Miranda giving should not be taken as effecting restraint; it is for voluntariness/custody analysis (Ayles) | Miranda warnings are relevant; because the public associates them with custody, they are a factor in assessing whether a reasonable person would feel detained | Held: Miranda warnings are a relevant factor in the totality-of-circumstances seizure analysis |
| Whether individual actions (knock, request to step outside, request to patdown) standing alone cause a stop | Each action alone is permissible and nonseizure in many contexts | Even if each action alone might not, the combination can create a seizure | Held: The combined actions here created a show of authority that a reasonable person would interpret as a significant restraint |
| Whether suppression is required absent state showing of reasonable suspicion | State did not argue reasonable suspicion; it only argued no stop occurred | Defendant argued stop occurred and was unsupported by reasonable suspicion | Held: Because the majority found a stop occurred and state did not justify it, suppression required; conviction reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Backstrand, 354 Or. 392 (2013) (totality-of-circumstances test for when police-citizen encounter becomes a seizure)
- State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or. 297 (2011) (distinguishing mere conversation from a show of authority that effects a seizure)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda warnings required when person taken into custody or otherwise deprived of freedom in any significant way)
- State v. Ayles, 348 Or. 622 (2010) (Miranda warnings assessed for voluntariness/attenuation; warnings cannot be used to prove coercion)
- State v. Anderson, 354 Or. 440 (2013) (officers’ questions do not automatically constitute a seizure; physical directives or coercive show of authority are critical)
- State v. Highley, 354 Or. 459 (2013) (verbal inquiries alone ordinarily do not constitute a seizure)