State v. Radtke
242 Or. App. 234
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant Stacy Radtke was encountered by a Marion County deputy while another man, under arrest for trafficking methamphetamine, awaited in a patrol car.
- The deputy took Radtke's name and date of birth, wrote them in a notebook, and then asked if she had anything illegal and for consent to search.
- Radtke stated she did not carry contraband; the deputy did not immediately run a warrants check, but proceeded to question her about drugs and weapons.
- During the encounter, a plastic baggie containing methamphetamine was disclosed when Radtke attempted to show her pockets; the baggie fell when the deputy restrained her wrist.
- Defendant moved to suppress the evidence as fruits of an unlawful stop; the trial court denied, and on appeal this court initially held no seizure under Holmes/Toevs framework.
- Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of State v. Ashbaugh; the issue is whether taking name and birth date constitutes a seizure under the Oregon Constitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did taking identification amount to a seizure? | Radtke seized by note-taking and investigation. | No seizure unless show of authority or restraint. | Yes, it was a seizure under totality of circumstances. |
| Was there a stop when the deputy began questioning after noting name and DOB? | Investigation ongoing; questioning concurrent with information collection. | Questioning alone does not constitute seizure. | Yes, amounted to a stop under totality of circumstances. |
| Did the deputy's lack of reasonable suspicion affect suppression of evidence? | Evidence should be suppressed as tainted by unlawful stop. | Questioning may be permissible without suspicion in a consensual encounter. | Suppression required; no attenuation between stop and discovery. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or. 297 (2010) (redefines seizure as totality-based, no 'could have believed' standard)
- State v. Toevs, 327 Or. 525 (1998) (notions of stop and freedom to leave under Holmes)
- State v. Holmes, 311 Or. 400 (1991) (definition of stop based on show of authority and freedom of movement)
- State v. Thompkin, 341 Or. 368 (2006) (warrant-check context and perception of investigation)
- State v. Hall, 339 Or. 7 (2005) (investigatory subject of warrants affects perceived freedom)