243 P.3d 880
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- At approximately 11:30 p.m., Murphy followed a car with defendant as a passenger in a high-crime area after a traffic infraction.
- Murphy stopped the car, exited his patrol car with lights on, and defendant walked toward Murphy’s vehicle; they spoke for a moment and defendant appeared not to be free to leave per the trial court.
- Backup was requested for safety; Murphy asked defendant about possession of a crack pipe and illegal items, and defendant consented to a search.
- Another officer, Yee, arrived and conducted a pat-down search after defendant answered questions; drugs were found on defendant.
- Defendant moved to suppress the search evidence, arguing the stop was unlawful under Article I, section 9 due to lack of reasonable suspicion and coercive circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Murphy's encounter constituted an unlawful stop | Gibson: no seizure occurred; it was a consensual conversation. | Leviás: the questions and setup transformed into a stop without reasonable suspicion. | Stop unlawful; consent search suppressed |
| Whether the consent to search tainted by an unlawful stop | Consent was voluntary after conversation, not under compulsion. | Consent tainted by unlawful detention and not free to leave. | Consent tainted; suppression required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Toevs, 327 Or. 525 (1998) (reasonable suspicion required for a stop)
- State v. Belt, 325 Or. 6 (1997) (subjective and objective components of reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Holmes, 311 Or. 400 (1991) (Holmes-type stop framework)
- State v. Parker, 225 Or. App. 610 (2009) (Holmes-type inquiry; burden on state to disprove belief or reasonableness)
- State v. Ashbaugh, 225 Or. App. 16 (2008) (no meaningful distinction between warrant checks and other investigations for purposes of stop)
- State v. Lovell, 233 Or. App. 381 (2010) (request to search after denial can constitute a stop)
- State v. Zamora-Martinez, 229 Or. App. 397 (2009) (reasonable belief of investigation after a further identification request)
- State v. Baker, 154 Or. App. 358 (1998) (conversation could become a seizure when leading to investigation)
- State v. Morgan, 226 Or. App. 515 (2009) (consent to search in vehicle stop not inherently a stop when non-coercive)
- State v. Hall, 339 Or. 7 (2005) (identification request and warrant check can convert consensual encounter into stop)