State v. Wiggins, 324 P.3d 626

Police narcotics detective Davis observed movements at a park he suspected were a drug deal, then followed a vehicle driven by defendant after a different vehicle left and defendant picked up a woman ("Shawna").
Davis learned the car’s registered owner (defendant’s mother) had a drug-related history; defendant said the car belonged to her mother and admitted prior (months-old) meth and marijuana use.
Davis asked permission to conduct a canine exterior sniff of the parked car; defendant repeatedly refused and sat on the hood until officers ordered her, under threat of arrest, to move away from the vehicle.
After officers compelled defendant to move, the trained narcotics dog alerted on the car; officers then handcuffed defendant, advised her rights, searched the car, found methamphetamine and paraphernalia, and obtained incriminating statements.
Defendant moved to suppress all evidence as fruit of an unlawful stop; the trial court denied suppression based on probable cause and the automobile exception but did not rule on whether the encounter was a seizure supported by reasonable suspicion.
The Court of Appeals held the order to move constituted a stop, the stop lacked reasonable suspicion, the dog sniff was causally linked to that illegal stop, and suppression was required; it reversed and remanded.

Issue	State's Argument	Shawna (Defendant) Argument	Held
Whether ordering defendant to move away from her vehicle constituted a seizure	Not disputed at oral argument that ordering to move can be a stop; state argued dog sniff did not require reasonable suspicion because it could lawfully occur in public	The officers’ order to move (under threat of arrest) was a seizure of defendant	Ordering defendant to move under threat of arrest was a constitutionally significant seizure (a stop)
Whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion	Officer relied on totality: suspected park drug deal, Shawna’s actions, defendant’s prior drug use, nonownership of car, owner’s drug history, evasive statements, and high-crime area	These facts gave rise to individualized reasonable suspicion to detain defendant for investigation	No reasonable suspicion: many facts concerned others (owner, Shawna) or were nonparticularized (past drug use, presence in high-crime area); stop was unlawful
Whether evidence from dog sniff/search is admissible despite the stop	Argued sniff would have occurred regardless and subsequent dog alert/miranda statements and search attenuated or were independent lawful sources of evidence	Dog sniff would not have occurred but for the illegal stop; therefore the alert, statements, and search are fruits of the illegal seizure	The dog sniff was the unattenuated product of the illegal stop; evidence obtained (alert, statements, search results) must be suppressed

State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66 (review standard for suppression rulings)
State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297 (what constitutes a constitutionally significant seizure)
State v. Fair, 353 Or 588 (show of authority or physical force test for seizure)
State v. Martin, 260 Or App 461 (reasonable-suspicion standard and reliance on officer experience)
State v. Alvarado, 257 Or App 612 (limits on inferences from benign conduct for drug stops)
State v. Bertsch, 251 Or App 128 (presence in drug area or association with known users insufficient for suspicion)
State v. Holcomb, 202 Or App 73 (past drug use insufficient alone for reasonable suspicion)
State v. Anderson, 354 Or 440 (seizure requires added pressure via force or show of authority)
State v. Musser, 253 Or App 178 (reasonable-suspicion to stop is a question of law)
State v. Ruiz, 196 Or App 324 (ordering conduct can constitute a stop)