Oregon Supreme Ct - Aug. 7, 2014

Revision as of 15:46, August 10, 2014

The Following Summaries Are Still Being Edited:

Exigent Circumstance—Preventing Further Imminent Harm to Animal Victim

The exigent circumstances exception permits warrantless measures where there is probable cause and where immediate action is necessary to “enable officers to fulfill essential law enforcement responsibilities in emergency circumstances.” The court explains that these responsibilities include preventing further imminent harm to a victim. In this case, the officer seized defendants’ emaciated horse and took her to a veterinarian. The court held that the officer had probable cause to believe that animal neglect was in progress and reasonably believed that the horse was at risk of serious imminent injury or death. The seizure was authorized under the exigent circumstances exception. The court also held that the seizure was authorized under the exigency exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Affirmed. State v. Fessenden/Dicke, 355 Or 759 (2014).

Unlawful Use of a Weapon Encompasses Using a Weapon to Threaten Harm or Injury.

Using a weapon to threaten immediate harm or injury constitutes unlawful use of a weapon under ORS 166.220(1)(a). A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if he or she “attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon.” ORS 166.220(1)(a). In these two consolidated cases, each defendant displayed a dangerous or deadly weapon against another person in a manner that threatened the other person with imminent serious physical injury. The Court held that both defendants were guilty of unlawful use of a weapon under ORS 166.110(1)(a), because “use” in ORS 166.220(1)(a) refers both to employment of a weapon to inflict harm or injury and employment of a weapon to threaten immediate harm or injury. Affirmed. State v. Ziska/ Garza, 355 Or. 799 (2014).

Animals can be victims within the meaning of Oregon’s anti-merger statute.

Animals can be victims within the meaning of Oregon’s anti-merger statute, ORS 161.067. Oregon’s anti-merger statute provides that, when the same conduct or criminal episode violates only one statute, but involves more than one “victim,” there are “as many separately punishable offenses as there are victims.” ORS 161.067. Here, a jury found the defendant guilty of neglecting 20 different animals, and the state argued for 20 separate convictions. The Court held that 20 separate convictions was appropriate, because the term “victim” in the anti-merger statute draws its meaning from the underlying substantive criminal statute that the defendant violated; and the text, context and legislative history of the second-degree animal neglect statute all indicate that the legislature intended the neglected animals as victims of the offense. Affirmed.State v. Nix, 355 Or. 777 (2014).

Police Officers May Rely on Information Provided by Other Officers as a Factor in Justifying a Stop

The collective knowledge doctrine applies when a police officer reasonably relies on information provided by other officers when making a determination that a stop is justified based on facts that a crime has or is about to be committed. The trial court concluded that the officer who stopped defendant had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop and defendant was convicted of possession of illegal substances. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction holding that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion of drug activity. “[T]he Court of Appeals erred . . . it did not consider the information that [the officer] had received from other officers as circumstances to weight in its ultimate determination of whether there was reasonable suspicion for [the officer] to stop defendant.” The information was the shared knowledge of the officers as a collective unit and included the information of defendant’s driver and the vehicle he was in. The Court concluded that the facts, considered under the totality of the circumstances, gave rise to reasonable suspicion. Reversed Court of Appeals, Affirmed Conviction. State v. Holdorf, 355 Or 812 (2014).

A Police Officer’s Experience and Training May Be a Factor Considered by The Court When Reviewing A Stop

A police officer’s training and experience may, depending on the surrounding factual circumstances, be taken into account when a stop is reviewed under the standard of “reasonable suspicion.” An officer’s training and experience must be supported by evidence of specific facts that allow an officer to make a reasonable inference based on his training and experience. Training and experience may not be presumed based on the officer’s employment status. Defendant was convicted of possession of illegal substances. Here, the arresting officer stated that he observed the defendant displaying signs associated with meth use known as “tweaking” out. The arresting officer was also told by other officers that the defendant’s driver was a known to be a distributor of meth. The Court concluded that reviewing courts must determine the weight of the officer’s training and experience on a case by case basis, and that the facts in this case, considered under the totality of the circumstances, gave rise to reasonable suspicion. Reversed Court of Appeals, Affirmed Conviction. State v. Holdorf, 355 Or 812 (2014).