State v. Kuehne, 454 P.3d 797

Shortly after dusk on a rural two‑lane road, Deputy Smith was dispatched to a report that someone was creating a traffic hazard by pushing a shopping cart in the travel lane.
Smith parked about 150 feet away on the opposite side of the road; because of a narrow shoulder his patrol car partially obstructed the westbound lane and he activated rear overhead lights to warn approaching traffic.
Smith approached the defendant, whom he recognized from prior nonhostile contacts and knew had admitted past methamphetamine use, and asked, “Are you high?”
While speaking, Smith observed a large bulge in defendant’s front left pocket and asked what it was; defendant removed a handful of items including a small clear plastic box showing folded Ziploc baggies.
Smith believed the box contained a controlled substance, took it from defendant’s pocket, opened it, and discovered a crystalline substance that later tested positive for methamphetamine.
The trial court denied defendant’s suppression motion (concluding no stop occurred); after a bench trial defendant was convicted. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Kuehne's Argument	Held
Whether Smith’s contact was a "stop" (seizure) under Article I, §9	The encounter was a mere, noncoercive public contact and safety‑based use of lights; questions were permissible inquiries	Lights, parking position, and questioning conveyed coercive authority such that a reasonable person would not feel free to leave	Not a stop; on totality a reasonable person would not feel intentionally and significantly restricted
Whether activation of patrol car lights and partial lane obstruction converted the encounter into a seizure	Lights were activated for traffic‑safety and were not directed at defendant or used to pull him over	Lights (visible to defendant) would be perceived as directed at him and thus coercive	Lights viewed as safety measure given location, distance (150 ft), orientation and darkness — not coercive
Whether questioning about being "high" and the pocket bulge, and Smith’s later reaching into pocket, made the encounter a stop or unlawful search	Questions were noncoercive inquiries; Smith obtained probable cause after seeing the clear box and could remove it	Asking about drugs and not accepting answers signaled investigation and detention; reaching into pocket was an improper search absent consent	Questions alone did not effect a stop; after Smith observed the box and folded baggies he had probable cause to seize the box and retrieve it from the pocket

State v. Backstrand, 354 Or 392 (Or. 2013) (defines test: seizure occurs when officer intentionally and significantly restricts freedom of movement)
State v. Fair, 353 Or 588 (Or. 2013) (location and practical realities affect whether police conduct is intrusive)
State v. Nelson, 294 Or App 793 (Or. App. 2018) (totality analysis; mere inquiries do not necessarily effect a stop)
State v. Leiby, 293 Or App 293 (Or. App. 2018) ("dogged pursuit" and wording can convey obligation to stop)
State v. K. A. M., 361 Or 805 (Or. 2017) (entry into private space and accusatory statements can create coercive atmosphere constituting a seizure)
State v. Gerrish, 311 Or 506 (Or. 1991) (officer’s lights and efforts to get attention for inquiry may be the only practical means and not a seizure)
State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297 (Or. 2010) (questions about illegal items do not necessarily convert an encounter into a stop)
State v. Allen, 224 Or App 524 (Or. App. 2008) (officer statements that amount to a direct accusation can constitute a seizure)