Oregon Appellate Court - Nov. 6, 2013
by: Abassos • November 6, 2013 • one comment
(Created page with "<summary hidden> *Police Have an Obligation to Unambiguously End Traffic Stops''' </summary> '''Police Have an Obligation to Unambiguously End Traffic Stops''' Where a pol...") |
|||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Where a police officer has physically blocked a person from leaving, the person is likely stopped, even if the officer tells the person they're free to leave. It is a totality of the circumstances test, but in this case, the physical barrier was the most important fact to the court. After the completion of a traffic stop, the officer had a casual conversation with the defendant in which he was clearly told he was free to leave. Defendant told the officer that the officer's car was blocking him in and the officer offered to immediately move it. Defendant did not bring it up again. The defendant, however, was not required to ask the officer to move his car: "the obligation to unambiguously end traffic stops does not fall on citizens; it falls on law enforcement officials." | Where a police officer has physically blocked a person from leaving, the person is likely stopped, even if the officer tells the person they're free to leave. It is a totality of the circumstances test, but in this case, the physical barrier was the most important fact to the court. After the completion of a traffic stop, the officer had a casual conversation with the defendant in which he was clearly told he was free to leave. Defendant told the officer that the officer's car was blocking him in and the officer offered to immediately move it. Defendant did not bring it up again. The defendant, however, was not required to ask the officer to move his car: "the obligation to unambiguously end traffic stops does not fall on citizens; it falls on law enforcement officials." | ||
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A146017.pdf State v Peterson], 259 Or App ___ (11/6/2013) | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A146017.pdf State v Peterson], 259 Or App ___ (11/6/2013) | ||
| + | {{wl-publish: 2013-11-06 16:30:15 -0800 | Abassos:Alex Bassos }} | ||
Latest revision as of 17:30, November 7, 2013
Police Have an Obligation to Unambiguously End Traffic Stops
Where a police officer has physically blocked a person from leaving, the person is likely stopped, even if the officer tells the person they're free to leave. It is a totality of the circumstances test, but in this case, the physical barrier was the most important fact to the court. After the completion of a traffic stop, the officer had a casual conversation with the defendant in which he was clearly told he was free to leave. Defendant told the officer that the officer's car was blocking him in and the officer offered to immediately move it. Defendant did not bring it up again. The defendant, however, was not required to ask the officer to move his car: "the obligation to unambiguously end traffic stops does not fall on citizens; it falls on law enforcement officials." State v Peterson, 259 Or App ___ (11/6/2013)
