State v. Courtney
242 Or. App. 321
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant, a passenger in a car stopped for a broken tail light, challenged the stop under Article I, section 9.
- Officer Stenzel questioned occupants, conducted pat-downs, and prepared the car for towing; defendant consented to searches for weapons.
- During removal for towing, two methamphetamine pipes fell from the car and were observed; officer arrested defendant after Miranda warnings.
- Defendant admitted having items in his shoe; plastic bag with methamphetamine was found and field-tested positive.
- Defendant moved to suppress all evidence as illegally obtained; trial court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was defendant seized under Article I, section 9? | Defendant was merely a passenger; no seizure occurred. | The authorizing show of authority and the questioning before exit constituted a seizure. | Yes, defendant was unlawfully seized prior to discovery of the pipes. |
| Does the discovery of the pipes have a minimal factual nexus to the unlawful seizure so as to require suppression of that evidence? | Pipes were observed after unlawful detention; nexus exists. | No causal link; pipes discovered by independent, lawful actions. | No minimal nexus for the pipes; suppression not required for that evidence |
| Does the evidence derived from defendant's admissions and shoe drug evidence have a nexus to the unlawful seizure? | The unlawful seizure contributed to subsequent admissions and discovery. | No sufficient link established absent the pipes’ discovery. | Not reached; defendant failed to show a nexus between seizure and remaining evidence |
| What standard governs whether a temporary traffic-stop encounter constitutes a seizure for purposes of Article I, section 9? | Precedent supports a broader interpretation of seizure including passenger encounters. | Ashbaugh framework applies; objective totality of circumstances matters. | Adopts Ashbaugh framework; passenger can be seized under circumstances here |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashbaugh, 349 Or. 297 (2010) (three categories of police-citizen encounters; seizure includes stops and arrests)
- Amaya, 336 Or. 616 (2004) (passengers in a stopped car may be detained but not necessarily seized)
- Smith, 236 Or. App. 5 (2010) (step-out and questioning factors; totality of circumstances)
- Woods, 134 Or. App. 53 (1995) (non-coercive requests to step out can be non-seizure depending on context)
- Ayles, 348 Or. 622 (2010) (minimal factual nexus for consent during unlawful seizure; post hoc analysis rejected)
- Hall, 339 Or. 7 (2005) (minimal nexus standard for admissibility after unlawful detention)
- Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or. 610 (2010) (consent to search during unlawful detention creates nexus)
- Backstrand, 231 Or. App. 621 (2009) (identification obtained during or as a result of unlawful stop; nexus analysis)
- Huggett, 228 Or. App. 569 (2009) (nexus where discovery results from unlawful extension and search)
- Chambers, 226 Or. App. 363 (2009) (but-for linkage in implied consent and discovery during unlawful circumstance)