State v. Moats, 284 P.3d 568

Officers stake out a dark parking lot near a shopping center known for drug activity; they notify loiterers of a no-trespass policy and record identifying information.
Bennett, who arrived in a car driven by a woman, spends several minutes in lot observing; defendant then drives in and parks alongside Bennett.
Bennett and defendant exit their vehicles, exchange items observed by officers though not visible to them, and proceed to engage in incriminating conduct.
Officers approach in plain clothes, identify themselves, and ask questions about suspicious activity, prompting Bennett to drop four drug bindles.
Trial court held there was a seizure at or before the bindles were seen by an officer and that reasonable suspicion existed; suppression was denied, defendant was convicted after a stipulated facts trial.
Court addresses whether the initial interaction ever rose to a constitutional seizure and whether there was reasonable suspicion prior to Bennett’s drop of the drugs, ultimately affirming the suppression denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did the interaction become a seizure under Article I, section 9?	State argues seizure occurred when a show of authority or coercive contact restricted movement.	Brewer contends a seizure occurred earlier due to concerted approach and badges,	No seizure before Bennett dropped the bindles; contact did not significantly restrict movement.
Was there reasonable suspicion to detain before the bindles were observed?	State asserts totality of circumstances gave reasonable suspicion.	Brewer argues no sufficient basis prior to the drop.	No seizure before the bindles; later suspicion based on observed conduct sufficed for stop.
Did Ashbaugh govern whether the officers’ conduct constituted a seizure?	State relies on Ashbaugh's framework for when a show of authority occurs.	Brewer asserts the interaction created a seizure under Ashbaugh.	Concerted approach did not constitute a sufficient show of authority to seize.
Did officers’ tone, presence, and questions alone create a seizure?	State argues questions and badges can be a seizure under totality.	Brewer argues such actions did not restrict liberty.	Questions and identification did not, by themselves, amount to a seizure.
Are the officers’ subjective intentions dispositive in determining a stop?	State: subjective intent is irrelevant to seizure.	Brewer argues intent to detain implies seizure.	Subjective intentions are not dispositive; objective show of authority governs.

Ashbaugh v. State, 349 Or 297 (2010) (test for whether an encounter becomes a seizure hinges on show of authority and movement restriction)
State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 (2010) (show of authority may seize when liberty is restricted by police actions)
State v. Levias, 242 Or App 264 (2011) (support for analyzing whether defendant was seized under totality of circumstances)
State v. Smith, 247 Or App 624 (2012) (second officer present does not automatically create seizure; surrounding position matters)