342 P.3d 1102
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Officer observed defendant's car stopped near the 13th & State intersection at night; car remained stationary ~30 seconds.
- Officer pulled his spotlight on to look into the car; the car then moved forward and proceeded; officer then activated overhead lights and stopped the car.
- At the suppression hearing, the officer testified verbally that the car was "in an intersection," but when asked to mark a map he drew the car stopped south of the crosswalk (i.e., outside the legal intersection).
- Prosecutor relied on ORS 811.550(5) (stopping "within an intersection") to justify probable cause; state later suggested ORS 811.550(1) (stopping on roadway outside business/residence district) in rebuttal.
- Trial court denied suppression, finding probable cause for illegal stopping (and suggesting an officer's good-faith mistake might suffice); defendant convicted of DUII and appealed.
- Court of Appeals reversed: record shows officer perceived the car stopped before the crosswalk (outside the intersection), so stopping lacked probable cause under ORS 811.550(5); suppression should have been granted.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had probable cause to stop for ORS 811.550(5) (stopping within an intersection) | Officer observed a vehicle "in an intersection" and therefore had probable cause to cite illegal stopping | Car was stopped before the crosswalk outside the intersection as shown on the officer's map, so no violation and no probable cause | Court held record shows car was stopped before the crosswalk; officer lacked probable cause and stop was unlawful |
| Whether officer had probable cause under ORS 811.550(1) (stopping on roadway outside business/residence district) | State urged this theory in rebuttal at suppression hearing | State failed to present evidence that the stop was outside a business/residence district or that stopping off roadway was practicable | Court declined to rely on this theory; state did not adequately develop it and did not pursue it on appeal |
| Whether appellate court must defer to implicit trial-court factual findings | State argued Ball v. Gladden requires presumption that trial court resolved facts consistent with its legal conclusion | Defendant argued trial court made no supported factual finding that car was within the intersection; officer's map controls | Court held any implicit finding that car was within the intersection was not supported by the record; deference not warranted |
| Whether an officer's good-faith mistake about the law can supply objective reasonableness for a stop | Trial court suggested a good-faith but mistaken belief could justify a stop | Defendant argued that if the facts believed by the officer (as shown) do not constitute a violation, the belief is not objectively reasonable | Court noted Baker/Jay rejects good-faith mistake as sufficing under Oregon law; cited Heien (Fourth Amendment context) but held under state law the officer lacked objective reasonableness here |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Musser, 356 Or. 148 (evidence from unlawful stop must be suppressed)
- State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66 (appellate deference to trial court findings when supported by record)
- Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or. 485 (presumption that trial court resolved factual disputes consistent with its legal conclusion)
- State v. Juarez-Godinez, 326 Or. 1 (inferences supporting findings must be reasonable)
- State v. Baker/Jay, 232 Or. App. 112 (officer's mistaken belief that observed facts constitute a violation is not objectively reasonable under Oregon law)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014) (Fourth Amendment: reasonable mistake of law can sometimes justify a stop)