State v. Glickert

“The ‘critical question’ that distinguishes ‘relaxed conversation’ from ‘coercive questioning’ is … whether, given all the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that their freedom of movement [is] being significantly restricted.” State v. Reyes-Herrera, 500 P.3d 1 at 61-62 (Or. 2021).

Defendant appealed a conviction for possession of methamphetamine. Police stopped Defendant in vehicle while on private property as she was leaving a residence connected with suspected drug activity. While officers were asking Defendant questions, Defendant admitted to drug use and turned over a methamphetamine pipe. Defendant assigned error to the court for denying her motion to suppress based on an unlawful seizure under Article 1, section 9 of the Oregon state constitution. Defendant argues that this interaction constitutes a stop by criminal accusation. The State argued the police encounter was a “noncoercive conversation,” and a reasonable person in Defendant’s position would have believed they were free to go if they chose. Distinguishing a ‘relaxed conversation’ from ‘coercive questioning’ “is whether, given all the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that their freedom of movement was being significantly restricted.” State v. Reyes-Herrera, 500 P.3d 1 at 61-62 (Or. 2021). The Court found that the moment the police officer confirmed Defendant’s name and informed her of an investigation, she was unlawfully seized under Article I, section 9. Reversed and remanded.