401 P.3d 271
Or. Ct. App.2017Background
- Officer observed defendant drive out of the Dari Mart parking lot entrance/exit and onto the sidewalk without stopping; defendant then stopped in the middle of the sidewalk.
- The area where defendant exited consisted of marked parking spaces adjacent to the store and an unmarked drive area leading to a curb gap serving as the entrance/exit.
- Officer Ledford stopped defendant believing the conduct violated ORS 811.505 (failure to stop when emerging from an alley, driveway, or building).
- Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained after the stop, arguing the officer lacked probable cause because ORS 811.505 does not apply to parking lots.
- Trial court denied the motion to suppress; defendant appealed, arguing the perceived facts did not constitute an offense and so the stop violated Article I, §9 of the Oregon Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the portion of the Dari Mart parking lot from which defendant emerged is a "driveway" under ORS 811.505 | That the area functioned as a driveway giving access from the street to the private premises, so ORS 811.505 applied | The statute does not apply to exits from parking lots; therefore no duty to stop and no offense occurred | The court held the unmarked drive portion served as a "driveway" in ordinary meaning; ORS 811.505 applied and the observed conduct violated the statute |
| Whether officer had probable cause for the stop under Article I, §9 given the legal question | Officer had probable cause because the perceived facts satisfied ORS 811.505 | Without a statutory violation, the stop lacked probable cause and suppression was required | The court affirmed: because the conduct constituted a statutory violation, the stop was supported by probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stookey, 255 Or App 489 (Or. Ct. App.) (officer lacks probable cause when perceived facts do not constitute an offense)
- State v. Tiffin, 202 Or App 199 (Or. Ct. App.) (officer's reasonable belief requires that perceived facts actually satisfy offense elements)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (Or.) (use ordinary meaning of undefined statutory terms)
- Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530 (U.S. 2014) (Fourth Amendment reasonable suspicion may rest on a reasonable mistake of law)