State v. Fair, 302 P.3d 417

Officers respond to an aborted 9-1-1 call traced to defendant’s home, suspecting domestic assault.
One officer detains defendant’s husband; another interviews defendant on the porch with officers between them.
An orange syringe cap is observed during questioning, prompting further drug-related inquiry.
A napkin with a broken glass pipe and drug residue is found during a consensual search of defendant.
Defendant seeks suppression arguing the early seizure violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.
Court holds defendant was seized but the seizure was lawful under the totality of circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant was seized under Article I, section 9	State argues no seizure occurred	Fair/defendant contends orders to exit and remain on porch amounted to seizure	Yes, there was a seizure under Dahl/Gerrish framework
Whether the seizure was lawful under Article I, section 9	Seizure justified by emergency response and probable cause	Seizure invalid without warrant or exigency beyond initial emergency	Yes, seizure reasonable given exigent domestic-violence context and on-scene questioning

State v. Holmes, 311 Or 400 (1991) (public-place encounters may not constitute seizures; safety and investigative needs considered)
State v. Gerrish, 311 Or 506 (1991) (witness/victim detentions can be nonseizures; stop of witnesses may be permissible under Model Code guidance)
State v. Dahl, 323 Or 199 (1996) (entering home to seize a person generally requires a warrant; exigency may excuse it in some cases)