Oregon Appellate Ct - April 19, 2017
by: Sara Werboff • April 21, 2017 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> * * * * * * </summary> [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A156601.pdf State v. Evans], 284 Or App 806 (2017) (Ortega, P.J.) [http://www.public...") |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| + | Search and Seizure – Defendant was Not Seized Under Oregon Law and Police Had Reasonable Suspicion Justifying Seizure Under Federal Law | ||
| + | |||
| + | The court upholds the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress. Defendant was a passenger in a car that was stopped for a traffic violation. The officer noted that the driver was visibly upset and had a healing black eye. When the officer asked the driver about her eye, defendant said she had hurt it on a ladder. The officer felt that the explanation was inconsistent with the injury. The officer took their information and ran it to determine whether there was a valid driver for the car. The two shared a last name. The officer grew suspicious that the driver was the victim of domestic violence. When the officer got back to the car, she asked the driver to step out so she could ask questions outside of defendant’s presence. The driver denied domestic violence but acknowledged drug use and authorized the officer to retrieve some used syringes from the car. Defendant also admitted to possessing the syringes and said the officer could search the car. The officer found more drugs and paraphernalia. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Defendant challenged the search as an extension of a traffic stop. The court first concludes that under Article I, section 9, defendant, as a passenger, was not seized because the officer did not restrain him by physical force or a show of authority. Under the Fourth Amendment, the court explains, defendant was seized when the car was stopped. However, the court concludes that the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop to investigate whether the driver had been assaulted by defendant. | ||
[http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A156601.pdf State v. Evans], 284 Or App 806 (2017) (Ortega, P.J.) | [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A156601.pdf State v. Evans], 284 Or App 806 (2017) (Ortega, P.J.) | ||
Revision as of 13:27, April 22, 2017
Search and Seizure – Defendant was Not Seized Under Oregon Law and Police Had Reasonable Suspicion Justifying Seizure Under Federal Law
The court upholds the denial of defendant’s motion to suppress. Defendant was a passenger in a car that was stopped for a traffic violation. The officer noted that the driver was visibly upset and had a healing black eye. When the officer asked the driver about her eye, defendant said she had hurt it on a ladder. The officer felt that the explanation was inconsistent with the injury. The officer took their information and ran it to determine whether there was a valid driver for the car. The two shared a last name. The officer grew suspicious that the driver was the victim of domestic violence. When the officer got back to the car, she asked the driver to step out so she could ask questions outside of defendant’s presence. The driver denied domestic violence but acknowledged drug use and authorized the officer to retrieve some used syringes from the car. Defendant also admitted to possessing the syringes and said the officer could search the car. The officer found more drugs and paraphernalia.
Defendant challenged the search as an extension of a traffic stop. The court first concludes that under Article I, section 9, defendant, as a passenger, was not seized because the officer did not restrain him by physical force or a show of authority. Under the Fourth Amendment, the court explains, defendant was seized when the car was stopped. However, the court concludes that the officer had reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop to investigate whether the driver had been assaulted by defendant.
State v. Evans, 284 Or App 806 (2017) (Ortega, P.J.)
State v. Miller, 284 Or App 818 (2017) (Duncan, P.J.)
Cartrette v. Nooth, 284 Or App 834 (2017) (Lagesen, J.)
State v. Girard, 284 Or App 845 (2017) (Lagesen, J.)
State v. Girard, 284 Or App 885 (2017) (per curiam)
State v. Towai, 284 Or App 868 (2017) (Flynn, J., pro tempore)
Bogle v. Nooth, 284 Or App 879 (2017) (per curiam)
Bogle v. State of Oregon, 284 Or App 882 (2017) (per curiam)
