State v. Sepulveda

“An officer confronted with safety concerns may handcuff a person without converting the stop into an arrest, but the stop is converted into an arrest if the officer continues to use force to restrain the person after the officer’s safety concerns have dissipated.” State v. Hebrard, 244 Or App 593, 598, 260 P3d 759 (2011). After an officer has stopped and handcuffed a person for officer safety, the officer needs probable cause to further detain and search the person. ORS 131.005(1); State v. Sepulveda, 288 Or App 632, 641 (2017).

Defendant appealed his conviction for two metaphor related offenses. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered as a result of an unlawful arrest.  Defendant argued that the deputies arrested him without probable cause. The state in turn argued that Defendant cannot raise this argument because his motion to suppress failed to “apprise the state or the trial court of his precise legal argument before the hearing.” The court disagreed with the state because the Defendant wrote in his motion that he was challenging the warrantless seizure. “An officer confronted with safety concerns may handcuff a person without converting the stop into an arrest, but the stop is converted into an arrest if the officer continues to use force to restrain the person after the officer’s safety concerns have dissipated.” State v. Hebrard, 244 Or App 593, 598, 260 P3d 759 (2011). After an officer has stopped and handcuffed a person for officer safety, the officer needs probable cause to further detain and search the person. ORS 131.005(1); State v. Sepulveda, 288 Or App 632, 641 (2017). The Appellate Court held that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress because the deputies did not have probable cause to arrest the Defendant, making the arrest and seizure unlawful, after the stop and frisk revealed that the defendant was not armed. Reversed and remanded.