State v. Graves, 278 Or. App. 126

Officer Haugen stopped a vehicle for a traffic infraction; defendant was a passenger and the registered owner.
Haugen observed signs he associated with heroin use on both driver and passenger and returned to his patrol car to prepare a citation and call for a canine unit.
Haugen then approached the passenger side, asked the defendant to step out and walk to the front of his patrol car, and questioned her about criminal history, parole/probation status, and consent to search (which she refused).
During the conversation defendant repeatedly touched a pocket and, when her jacket shifted, Haugen saw a knife protruding; he took the knife for safety and discovered it was spring-assisted and unlawfully concealable, giving him probable cause to arrest.
After arrest and searches incident to arrest (person and car), police found heroin, methamphetamine, scales, packaging, and paraphernalia; defendant was convicted of drugs offenses and felon-in-possession of a restricted weapon.
Defendant moved to suppress post-contact evidence as the product of an unlawful seizure and later appealed both the denial of suppression and imposition of $1,352 in court-appointed attorney fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant was "seized" under Article I, §9 when asked to exit the car and questioned	State: No seizure occurred until the knife was taken; earlier interaction was consensual conversation	Defendant: Asking her out and questioning about criminal history made a reasonable person feel subject to investigation and not free to leave, so it was a seizure lacking reasonable suspicion	Court: No seizure occurred prior to officer taking the knife; questions were "mere conversation" under totality of circumstances and no show of authority existed
Whether imposition of $1,352 in attorney fees was lawful without a record of ability to pay	State: Concedes trial court plainly erred in imposing fees without evidence of ability to pay	Defendant: Court committed plain error and the fee order should be reversed	Court: Plain error; reversed the portion of the judgment imposing attorney fees

State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297 (explains test for "seizure" under Article I, §9 and three categories of police-citizen encounters)
State v. Lantzsch, 244 Or App 330 (passenger asked to exit and walk to patrol car was not seized; questioning and request to search were consensual)
State v. Parker, 266 Or App 230 (passenger not seized when asked to step out and questioned; officer’s conduct not a show of authority)
State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 (police inquiries during traffic stops typically do not constitute searches or seizures)
State v. Backstrand, 354 Or 392 (verbal questioning can become a seizure if accompanied by coercive manner/content or other coercive acts)
State v. Amaya, 336 Or 616 (traffic stop seizes driver but not automatically passengers; further show of authority needed to seize passenger)
State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714 (plain error to impose court-appointed attorney fees without evidence of defendant’s ability to pay)