State v. Cline, 330 P.3d 1255

Around 12:10 a.m., Officer Dunning drove alongside defendant (a known local) who was walking with a “sea bag.” They began a casual, familiar conversation.
Defendant approached the cruiser; Dunning told him to “stay where you are” / “stay on the curb,” then exited his vehicle and continued the conversation on the sidewalk.
Defendant agreed to let Dunning look in the sea bag; when defendant partially opened an inner black garbage bag, Dunning smelled marijuana and saw plant material.
Defendant was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana and moved to suppress evidence on the ground that he had been seized in violation of Article I, §9 of the Oregon Constitution.
The trial court denied the suppression motion, finding the interaction was a usual, casual conversation and that Dunning’s direction to stay on the curb was not a command.
The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that no seizure occurred before discovery of the marijuana under the totality-of-circumstances test.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dunning’s directive to “stay on the curb” constituted a seizure	Officer: directive was minor and part of a casual encounter; no seizure	Defendant: the instruction was a show of authority that restrained liberty, causing a seizure	Held: not a seizure — the directive was de minimis in the context of a consensual conversation
Whether subsequent questioning and requests to inspect the bags converted the encounter into a seizure	Officer/State: questions and consent requests were routine and did not combine to restrain liberty	Defendant: repeated questioning and requests signaled an investigation and would make a reasonable person feel not free to leave	Held: no seizure — under Highley the sequential requests did not amount to a show of authority that significantly restricted movement
Whether evidence obtained after the interaction should have been suppressed	State: evidence admissible because no unconstitutional seizure occurred prior to discovery	Defendant: evidence tainted by unlawful seizure and must be suppressed	Held: evidence admissible; suppression denial affirmed
Proper analytical standard for seizure under Article I, §9	State: Article I, §9 requires a reasonable perception of restraint based on show of authority and totality of circumstances	Defendant: facts here met that standard	Held: applied totality-of-circumstances; no show of authority sufficient to constitute a seizure prior to discovery

State v. Backstrand, 354 Or. 392 (2013) (seizure requires reasonable perception officer is exercising authority to restrain)
State v. Highley, 354 Or. 459 (2013) (series of identification and consent requests did not combine into a seizure)
State v. Hall, 339 Or. 7 (2005) (officer gestures for person to approach did not constitute significant interference with movement)
State v. Holmes, 311 Or. 400 (1991) (seizure inquiry requires fact-specific totality-of-circumstances analysis)
State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66 (1993) (appellate deference rule on factual findings and totality analysis)
State v. Johnson, 105 Or. App. 587 (1991) (officer’s request to step out from behind bush converted encounter into a stop)
State v. Zaccone, 245 Or. App. 560 (2011) (directing a person to stand at patrol car after investigative steps can indicate seizure)
State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or. 297 (2010) (definition of seizure under Article I, §9 and totality test)
State v. Kinkade, 247 Or. App. 595 (2012) (consensual pat-down following request did not constitute seizure)
State v. Hampton, 247 Or. App. 147 (2011) (standard of review for suppression hearing rulings)