- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 10-24-2018
- Case #: A163319
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Aoyagi, J., For the Court; Hadlock, PJ.; & DeGoog, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed his judgment of conviction for possession of methamphetamine, possession of heroin, and delivery of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence as it was the product of an unlawful stop. On appeal, Defendant argued that the police officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him. In response, the State argued that the stop was lawful because the officers had reasonable suspicion that Defendant was intoxicated. “For police officers to make a stop, they must reasonably suspect—based on specific and articulable facts—that the person committed a specific crime or type of crime or was about to commit a specific crime or type of crime.” State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 182, 389 P3d 1121 (2017). The Court held that the officer’s suspicion that Defendant was intoxicated was not sufficient evidence that he had or would commit a crime. Reversed.