State v. Wiseman
261 P.3d 76
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Officer stopped a pickup truck after responding to a 1:50 a.m. burglary/theft-related call describing a truck and license plate; a passenger (defendant) was present and a bicycle was loaded in the truck bed.
- Driver and defendant were questioned; warrant check revealed defendant had an arrest warrant; Miranda rights were given to defendant.
- Driver granted consent to search; methamphetamine, scales, and packaging materials were found in the truck.
- Trial court suppressed the evidence, ruling the stop lacked reasonable suspicion; state appealed under ORS 138.060(1)(c).
- Court of Appeals analyzed whether the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion under ORS 131.605/131.615 and the Oregon and US constitutions, applying an objective totality-of-the-circumstances test.
- Court reversed and remanded, holding the totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion under ORS 131.605/131.615? | State contends totality of circumstances gave reasonable suspicion. | Wiseman contends facts were insufficient; furtive behavior and high-crime area alone not enough; observed bicycle presence could have innocent explanation. | Yes; totality supported reasonable suspicion. |
| Did officer training and experience justify inference of criminal activity in light of the facts? | State relies on officer's experience linking similar acts to theft. | Wiseman argues inferences must be grounded in objective facts, not instinct alone. | Yes; training/experience supported objective reasonableness. |
| Did the trial court err in suppressing the evidence obtained from the stop? | Suppression reversed due to reasonable suspicion. | Suppression appropriate if no reasonable suspicion. | Erroneous; reversed and remanded for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66 (Oregon 1993) (establishes deference to historical fact findings and objective reasonable-suspicion standard under Article I, section 9)
- State v. Belt, 325 Or. 6 (Oregon 1997) (objective reasonableness standard; totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2002) (drugs/suspicion totality of circumstances test under Fourth Amendment)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1989) (minimum objective justification for a stop)
- State v. Valdez, 277 Or. 621 (Oregon 1977) (codification of state/federal standards for reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Miglavs, 337 Or. 1 (Oregon 2004) (inference from officer training/experience permissible when grounded in facts)
- State v. Kolendar, 100 Or.App. 319 (Oregon 1990) (police need only reasonable suspicion, not certainty or probable cause)
- Mitchele, 240 Or.App. 86 (Oregon 2010) (informant's reliable report corroborated by officer observations supports reasonable suspicion)
- Goss, 219 Or.App. 645 (Oregon 2008) (context of furtive movement and high-crime area contributing to reasonable suspicion)
- Blount, 143 Or.App. 582 (Oregon 1996) (presence in a high-crime area can contribute to suspicion when combined with other factors)