State v. Mitchele
240 Or. App. 86
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- Off-duty Portland officers received a 11:00 a.m. radio report of a white male casing houses in a high-crime SE Portland neighborhood.
- The caller provided name, address, and phone number and described the suspect’s clothing as black pants, black top, and a stocking hat.
- Officers located defendant on a public pathway connected to the Springwater Trail and observed him tucking into foliage.
- Defendant walked back toward the car when asked and stated he was waiting for a friend; he admitted probation but refused a search of his person.
- Slyter arrested him on a probation detainer after he refused consent, and methamphetamine was found during an inventory of his belongings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stop was supported by reasonable suspicion | State argues totality of circumstances supports suspicion | Mitchele argues tip and furtive moves insufficient for stop | Yes; stop supported by reasonable suspicion |
| Reliability of informant and corroboration | State contends informant’s report reliable and corroborated by circumstances | Mitchele contends reliability weak due to second-hand report | Informant report reliable and corroborating factors sufficient |
| Impact of furtive movement on reasonable suspicion | State relies on furtive movement as corroboration | Furtive movement alone does not justify stop | Furtive movement adds support to reasonable suspicion |
| Whether information about scoping homes supports crime likelihood | Caller’s opinion that defendant was casing is probative when combined with circumstances | Conclusory nature of tip undermines suspicion | Totality of circumstances supports stop |
| Constitutional basis for stop and inventory seizure | Stop and inventory lawful under ORS 131.615 and Article I, §9 | Challenge to stop invalidates subsequent inventory | Stop lawful; inventory admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66 (Or. 1993) (statutory framework for stopping a person suspected of crime; required specific and articulable facts)
- State v. Goss, 219 Or.App. 645 (Or. App. 2008) (informant reliability factors and corroboration on stop reasonableness)
- State v. Perrin, 143 Or.App. 123 (Or. App. 1996) (informant conclusions do not negate reasonable suspicion; details and context matter)
- State v. Hammonds/Deshler, 155 Or.App. 622 (Or. App. 1998) (need for specific facts to justify stop; behavior may support suspicion)
- State v. Butkovich, 87 Or.App. 587 (Or. App. 1987) (furtive gestures alone insufficient without criminal activity evidence)