State v. Rabanales-Ramos
273 Or. App. 228
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Trooper stopped defendant for allegedly driving while using a mobile communication device in violation of ORS 811.507.
- During the stop, trooper formed probable cause to arrest for DUI and defendant was later charged with felony DUII (ORS 813.011).
- Defendant moved to suppress the stop on grounds there was no probable cause to initiate the stop.
- Trial court granted the suppression; the state appealed contending the device was a mobile communication device and that looking at it for 10 seconds showed use.
- Court held that ‘uses’ in ORS 811.507(2) is limited to voice/text communication and the trooper lacked probable cause; suppression affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was supported by probable cause under ORS 811.507(2) | State: device was a cell phone; looking at it for 10 seconds established use. | Defendant: no probable cause; looking at a lit screen does not show use for voice/text purposes. | No probable cause; stop unlawful under Article I, section 9. |
| How to interpret 'uses' of a mobile communication device in ORS 811.507(2) | State: ‘uses’ includes any use of device beyond activating/deactivating. | Defendant: ‘uses’ means voice or text communication only; other device functions do not trigger liability. | ‘Uses’ limited to voice or text communication; does not cover merely looking at a lit screen. |
| Relation of ORS 811.507(3) activate/deactivate language to the 'uses' interpretation | State: activate/deactivate should not render ordinary 'uses' broader than text/voice. | Defendant: activate/deactivate could be read as exemption for turning devices on/off; otherwise surplusage. | Activate/deactivate clause clarifies exemptions; does not expand prohibited 'uses'. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Vasquez-Villagomez, 346 Or 12 (2009) (prescribed standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
- State v. Stookey, 255 Or App 489 (2013) (two-component probable cause: subjective belief and objective reasonableness)
- State v. Matthews, 320 Or 398 (1994) (probable cause requires violation under statute as perceived by officer)
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or 606 (1993) (statutory interpretation using plain meaning and context)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160 (2009) (context and legislative history in statutory interpretation)