379 P.3d 686
Jackson Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R.2016Background
- 17-year-old homeless youth was inside a private residence while police, with the renter's consent, conducted a sweep for a person of interest.
- A plainclothes officer entered the bedroom where youth was located and asked his name and whether he had anything illegal on him.
- Youth responded with his name and admitted he had a pipe; when asked what kind, he said a "meth pipe" and handed it to the officer; the pipe contained methamphetamine residue.
- State charged youth with unlawful possession of methamphetamine (ORS 475.894); youth moved to suppress the pipe and his statements under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.
- Juvenile court denied suppression; youth entered a conditional guilty plea preserving the suppression issue and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officer's questions constituted a stop under Article I, §9 | Youth: Asking whether he had anything illegal was a show of authority that unlawfully stopped him absent reasonable suspicion | State: Questions were conversational; no show of authority, so no stop occurred | Court held no stop occurred; questions alone did not restrict liberty |
| Whether youth's age/homeless status alters the reasonable-person stop analysis | Youth: His status (17 and homeless) should inform whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave | State: The stop analysis focuses on officer actions, not subject's personal characteristics | Court rejected importing those characteristics; analysis remains objective and officer-focused |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or. 297, 244 P.3d 360 (2010) (defines when an encounter is a seizure under Article I, §9 and frames the objective reasonable-person test)
- State v. Parker, 266 Or. App. 230, 337 P.3d 936 (2014) (focuses inquiry on officer actions and show of authority)
- State v. Backstrand, 354 Or. 392, 313 P.3d 1084 (2013) (explains show-of-authority concept and objective standard)
- State v. Radtke, 272 Or. App. 702, 358 P.3d 1003 (2015) (holding that asking for ID and whether defendant had illegal items did not constitute a stop)
- State v. Fair, 353 Or. 588, 302 P.3d 417 (2013) (location of encounter can affect reasonable-person perception)
- State v. D. P., 259 Or. App. 252, 313 P.3d 306 (2013) (discusses considering youth's circumstances under a different constitutional provision)