427 P.3d 1141
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Deputy Weaver followed defendant after making eye contact; defendant turned into a coffee drive-through and later re-entered the roadway.
- Weaver pursued through two parking lots because he believed defendant was avoiding him; Weaver never activated lights, siren, or blocked the vehicle.
- Defendant parked and remained in his car with his child and dog; Weaver approached in uniform and displayed his badge.
- Weaver asked, "Is there any reason or do you want to tell me why you're trying to avoid me?" Defendant replied, "I'm suspended."
- Weaver handcuffed defendant, verified his suspension, and cited him for driving while suspended; defendant moved to suppress statements and observations as the product of an unlawful seizure.
- Trial court denied suppression; defendant entered a conditional plea and appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the officer's conduct amounted to a seizure under Article I, § 9 (stop vs. mere encounter) | State: interaction was a "mere encounter"; questions alone do not constitute a seizure | Defendant: persistent following plus the officer's question would make a reasonable person feel not free to leave, so it was a seizure | Court: The totality of circumstances (dogged pursuit + confrontational question) objectively amounted to a seizure in violation of Article I, § 9; suppression should have been granted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Backstrand, 354 Or. 392, 313 P.3d 1084 (discusses three encounter categories and when police conduct becomes a seizure)
- State v. Fair, 353 Or. 588, 302 P.3d 417 (stops and arrests are seizures under Article I, § 9)
- State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or. 297, 244 P.3d 360 (seizure test and role of coercive conduct)
- State v. Musser, 356 Or. 148, 335 P.3d 814 (officer commands that limit movement can constitute a seizure)
- State v. Holdorf, 355 Or. 812, 333 P.3d 982 (review standard for suppression rulings)
- State v. Keller, 280 Or. App. 249, 380 P.3d 1144 (stating deference to trial court factual findings)
- State v. Underhill, 269 Or. App. 647, 346 P.3d 1214 (appeal standard for suppression legal errors)