333 P.3d 1125
Or. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant, present in L's apartment, was asked to step outside by Monk and believed she could not refuse.
- Monk seized defendant by taking her identification, writing down her name and date of birth, and retaining the information during the encounter.
- Monk, within the apartment, asked about drugs and weapons, then sought consent to search defendant's purse; he did not inform her of a right to refuse.
- Defendant consented to a purse search; Monk opened the purse and found what he believed to be methamphetamine.
- Monk asked dispatch to run defendant’s information; the record on return of the identification was unclear.
- The trial court denied suppression; the Court of Appeals previously reversed, holding the encounter was a seizure; after remand, the court reaffirms the seizure finding and reverses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a seizure when identification was retained? | Thompson argues retention of ID constitutes a stop. | Defendant contends retention was brief or not a seizure. | Yes, restraint was a seizure under totality. |
| Did requesting consent to search purse convert the encounter into a seizure? | Plaintiff asserts consent request was non-coercive and not a seizure. | Defendant argues the context implied restraint and seizure. | Yes, the context showed restraint and seizure. |
| Can the state satisfy the warrantless-seizure burden when retention was not shown to be brief? | State must prove seizure was not fruit of unlawful stop. | State failed to show brief retention as required by Painter. | State failed to justify seizure; suppressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompson, 254 Or App 282 (Or. App. 2012) (initial seizure finding and suppression reversal)
- State v. Painter, 296 Or 422 (Or. 1984) (per se stop when identification card retained)
- State v. Hall, 339 Or 7 (Or. 2005) (identification check can be a seizure)
- State v. Holmes, 311 Or 400 (Or. 1990) (fact-specific inquiry for seizures; mere conversation vs stop)
- State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297 (Or. 2010) (defining seizure under Article I, section 9)
- State v. Backstrand, 354 Or 392 (Or. 2013) (limits on per se rule; requests for information generally non-seizures)
- State v. Highley, 354 Or 459 (Or. 2013) (clarifies limits of identification checks as seizures)
- State v. Anderson, 354 Or 440 (Or. 2013) (reiterates totality-of-circumstances approach to seizures)