State v. Dudley, 263 P.3d 1054

Officer stopped a car in which Dudley was a passenger; defendant provided ID when asked; officer Smith ran warrants on both occupants while a cover officer arrived.
After driver performed field sobriety tests, Smith arrested the driver and departed with the driver in custody; DeBolt remained and asked Dudley if she had a ride home.
Defendant was still in the passenger seat; she called friends, then asked to walk home; DeBolt asked her to get out of the car.
DeBolt questioned Dudley about drugs or weapons and she answered no; Dudley consented to searches of her person and purse, which revealed controlled substances.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the later search was tainted by an unlawful seizure; the trial court denied suppression, finding the search consensual.
This appeal follows remand from the Oregon Supreme Court after Ashbaugh II clarified seizure analysis under Article I, section 9.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dudley was seized under Article I, section 9.	Dudley’s subjective belief that she could not leave indicated a stop.	No constitutionally significant seizure occurred; show of authority was not present.	No seizure under Ashbaugh II framework.
Whether the search of Dudley was valid as consensual.	Consent is tainted if obtained as a product of an unlawful seizure.	Search conduct was consensual and based on voluntary agreement.	Search valid as consensual; suppression denied.

State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or. 297 (2010) (abandons subjective component; adopts totality-of-the-circumstances seizure framework)
State v. Lantzsch, 244 Or. App. 330 (2011) (show of authority must restrict movement; mere questioning not seizure)
State v. Courtney, 242 Or. App. 321 (2011) (distinguishes limited questioning from a seizure when not coupled with other authority)
State v. Stevens, 311 Or. 119 (1991) (bound by trial court findings supported by the record)
State v. Dudley, 349 Or. 663 (2011) (remand for Ashbaugh II analysis)