283 P.3d 378
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Gresham police officer stopped defendant for a Class D traffic violation (crossing against a traffic light) around midnight.
- Delgado, with defendant, was also stopped; the officers gathered gang-related information and recorded gang affiliations and nicknames.
- Galbreath, part of the gang team, later asked to search them for weapons after a 10-minute contact.
- Defendant stated he had a dagger in his left pocket; the hilt became visible as his hands were raised, revealing concealed weapon during a patdown attempt.
- The trial court denied suppression, concluding the stop was lawful and the search extension was supported by reasonable suspicion of a concealed weapon.
- On appeal, defendant argues the patdown request extended the stop unlawfully; the State contends the stop remained valid or, alternatively, the extension was supported by reasonable suspicion and officer safety concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Galbreath properly stopped defendant under Article I, section 9. | State argues defendant was stopped by being told he had seen them break the law. | Duncan contends there was no valid stop beyond mere conversation. | Yes; Galbreath stopped defendant for the traffic violation. |
| Whether asking to search extended the stop under Article I, section 9. | State contends the inquiry was part of routine policing and justified. | Duncan argues the request extended the stop without reasonable suspicion. | Yes; the request extended the stop. |
| Whether Galbreath had reasonable suspicion to search for weapons. | State contends generalized gang-weapon knowledge plus defendant’s conduct yielded reasonable suspicion. | Duncan argues insufficient particularized facts to justify suspicion. | Yes; facts supported objective reasonable suspicion of carrying a weapon. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297 (2010) (seizure requires reasonable suspicion or safety emergency; stop treated as seizure under Article I, section 9)
- State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66 (1993) (review of unlawful stop is legal; constitutionally sufficient factual support required)
- State v. Gomes, 236 Or App 364 (2010) (unavoidable lull rule; limits on extending stop without reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Hall, 339 Or 7 (2005) (establishes framework for stops and warrant checks; permits factual review by appellate court)
- State v. Terhear/Goemmel, 142 Or App 450 (1996) (stop when officer states observed violation; not free to leave)