345 P.3d 468
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Around 2:00 p.m., Deputy Braun (a field-training officer and FST instructor) observed two visibly intoxicated women leave a pub and approach a vehicle in a parking lot. Defendant joined them and entered the driver’s seat.
- Braun observed defendant walking "slow and deliberate," not fluid; repeatedly touching the vehicle as if to orient himself.
- Defendant waited while a semi-truck finished loading, honked back at the truck, then backed out and drove about 20 feet down the center of a two-way lane (blocking both lanes).
- Braun found the touching and center-lane driving indicative of impaired spatial awareness and flagged defendant to stop; defendant initially attempted to drive away but then stopped.
- Defendant moved to suppress evidence, arguing the stop lacked reasonable suspicion (violating Article I, §9 and the Fourth Amendment). The trial court denied suppression; defendant appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed for legal error, deferred to trial facts, and evaluated reasonableness under the totality of the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Armstrong's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Braun had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant for DUII | Braun’s observations (intoxicated companions; slow, deliberate gait; repeated touching of vehicle; waiting/honking at semi; driving down center lane) collectively supported reasonable suspicion | Each observed fact has innocent explanations; no single or combined facts established an objectively reasonable suspicion of DUII | Stop was justified. Under the totality of circumstances Braun had reasonable suspicion; suppression denied and conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holdorf, 355 Or. 812 (Oregon 2014) (articulates totality-of-circumstances and specific-and-articulable-facts standard for reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Bertha, 256 Or. App. 375 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) (standard of review for suppression motion; deference to trial court fact findings)
- State v. Kentopp, 251 Or. App. 527 (Or. Ct. App. 2012) (facts insufficient to transform nervousness/appearance into reasonable suspicion of drug possession)
- State v. Maciel, 254 Or. App. 530 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) (various innocuous factors insufficient to support reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking)
- State v. Alvarado, 257 Or. App. 612 (Or. Ct. App. 2013) (traffic and behavioral signs did not justify investigatory stop for drug trafficking)
- State v. Martin, 260 Or. App. 461 (Or. Ct. App. 2014) (innocent explanations do not preclude reasonable suspicion when facts support an inference of criminality)
- State v. Villemeyer, 227 Or. App. 193 (Or. Ct. App. 2009) (reasonable suspicion requires only that facts support a reasonable inference of illegal activity)
- State v. Hiner, 240 Or. App. 175 (Or. Ct. App. 2010) (same)
- State v. McNeely, 330 Or. 457 (Oregon 2000) (declining to address undeveloped constitutional arguments)