State v. Semore

“An officer’s subjective belief is objectively reasonable when the officer can point to specific and articulable facts that support a reasonable inference that the defendant has committed or is about to commit the crime that the officer suspects.” State v. Maciel-Figuroa, 361 Or 163, 184, 389 P3d 1121 (2017).

Defendant appealed a conviction of Driving While Suspended and a finding of a probation violation. Defendant assigned error to the trial court rejecting his motion to suppress evidence of his suspended license. On appeal, Defendant reiterates the disjunction of the facts and the finding of a “reasonable suspicion,” necessary to have stopped defendant for engaging in criminal conduct. In response, the State argued that the deputy who stopped Defendant had a reasonable suspicion that the Defendant was involved in the criminal conduct of theft or offensive littering because of the following factors at the scene of the incident: (1) the time of stop; (2) the location of the stop, which is known for being the site of theft and illegal dumping; and (3) Defendant’s “hurried” motion from the fence behind the trailer back to his vehicle. “An officer’s subjective belief is objectively reasonable when the officer can point to specific and articulable facts that support a reasonable inference that the defendant has committed or is about to commit the crime that the officer suspects.” State v. Maciel-Figuroa, 361 Or 163, 184, 389 P3d 1121 (2017). The Court held that the circumstances at the scene of the incident do not amount to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, but rather a broad sweeping one because the stop was based purely on Defendant being at a high-crime location when the deputy was on patrol. Reversed and remanded.