State v. Martin, 317 P.3d 408

Defendant challenges suppression of evidence obtained after stop and arrest for UPPA and attempted prostitution under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.
Officer monitored defendant on 82nd Avenue (a high-vice area) for over an hour, then stopped and arrested her based on suspected UPPA/attempted prostitution.
Trial court denied suppression; defendant waived jury and proceeded to bench trial, resulting in conviction for UPPA.
Appellate court found the arrest violated Article I, section 9, and reversed and remanded for suppression of all evidence obtained as a result of the stop and arrest.
Court applied totality-of-circumstances review and relied on Valdez, Moya, Loud, Jacobs (and related precedents) to hold that the observed conduct was not a substantial basis for probable cause to arrest.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kula had probable cause to arrest defendant.	State argues totality supported probable cause.	Duncan contends conduct lacked substantial step toward prostitution.	Arrest unconstitutional; no probable cause.
Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion.	State contends conduct was enough for reasonable suspicion.	Duncan asserts lack of particularized suspicion.	Stop invalid for lack of reasonable suspicion.
Whether suppression is required under Article I, section 9.	State maintains admissibility despite flawed stop/arrest.	Duncan urges suppression for unlawful seizure.	Evidence obtained as a result of unlawful stop/arrest must be suppressed.

State v. Ebly?, 317 Or 66 (1993) (bound review of suppression decisions; facts binding when supported)
State v. Alvarado, 257 Or App 612 (2013) (reasonable suspicion standard; totality of circumstances)
State v. Mitchele, 240 Or App 86 (2010) (articulable facts required for stop; person-specific)
State v. Miglavs, 337 Or 1 (2004) (conduct must be more than consistent with crime)
State v. Kingsmith, 256 Or App 762 (2013) (reasonable suspicion; person-based assessment)
State v. Villemeyer, 227 Or App 193 (2009) (intuition insufficient for reasonable suspicion)
Valdez v. City of Portland, 277 Or 621 (1977) (high-crime area + ambiguous conduct not enough for stop)
State v. Moya, 97 Or App 375 (1989) (drug-area observations insufficient for stop; similar to Valdez)
State v. Loud, 149 Or App 250 (1997) (brief visit in high-drug-area not enough for stop)
State v. Jacobs, 187 Or App 330 (2003) (furtiveness not enough for probable cause)
State v. Heckathorne, 347 Or 474 (2009) (probable cause requires substantial basis; not mere suspicion)
State v. Foster, 350 Or 161 (2011) (probable cause requires more likely explanation than unlawful one)
State v. Owens, 302 Or 196 (1986) (probable cause standard for arrest)
State v. Verdine, 290 Or 553 (1981) (probable cause concept in arrest context)