State v. Rutledge
243 Or. App. 603
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- At about 2:00 a.m. on November 14, 2007, defendant was a passenger in a car in Winston.
- Two Douglas County sheriff's deputies stopped the car for a traffic violation near a motel suspected of narcotics activity.
- Deputy Norris asked the driver for license, registration, insurance, and, as a potential witness, defendant's name and date of birth; he did not use the information to check warrants.
- During the stop, the driver consented to a search of the car; Norris asked defendant to exit the car so he could search it.
- Norris found a purse on the passenger side; he held the purse and asked defendant if it was hers; she admitted having a meth pipe after initially resisting or questioning the need to search.
- Defendant was cited and indicted for unlawful possession of methamphetamine; she moved to suppress, which the trial court denied; on appeal the court held the stop was unlawful and suppressed the resulting evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a seizure/stop of defendant under Article I, section 9? | State contends no stop occurred. | Rutledge argues Norris's control of the purse and questions about it amounted to a stop. | Yes, the encounter was a stop. |
| Did Norris have reasonable suspicion to justify the stop? | State asserts totality of circumstances supported suspicion. | Rutledge argues suspicions were insufficient and based on noneconomic factors. | No reasonable suspicion existed. |
| Is the evidence obtained from the purse admissible given the unlawful stop? | State argues evidence derived from permissible questioning during stop. | Rutledge argues evidence resulted from an unlawful stop and must be suppressed. | Evidence must be suppressed; tainted by the illegal stop. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashbaugh v. State, 349 Or. 297 (2010) (seizure occurs when government action restrains liberty; objective test.)
- Ehly v. State, 317 Or. 66 (1993) (reasonable suspicion required; totality of circumstances.)
- Thompkin v. State, 341 Or. 368 (2006) (taking identification can constitute a stop; leaving not free to leave.)
- Lay v. State, 242 Or. App. 38 (2011) (identification requests and warrants checks can sustain a stop.)
- Berry v. State, 232 Or. App. 612 (2009) (furtive behavior and drug-activity context insufficient for suspicion.)