- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 10-26-2022
- Case #: A175045
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Pagán, J. for the Court; Shorr, P.J; & Mooney, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant entered a conditional plea of no contest after being charged with unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant argued that the methamphetamine was discovered during an unlawful stop because he was stopped before the officer formed a reasonable suspicion. The State contended that Defendant was not seized prior to being provided with his Miranda warnings. “For the purposes of Article I, section 9, a seizure occurs when (1) a police officer intentionally and significantly interferes with an individual’s liberty or freedom of movement; or (2) a reasonable person, under the totality of the circumstances, would believe that his or her liberty or freedom of movement has been significantly restricted.” State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 701 (2019). If an officer does not have reasonable suspicion when a stop occurs, then the stop is unlawful, and all evidence discovered as a result of the unlawful police action is presumed tainted by the violation and must be suppressed. State v. Newton, 286 Or App 274, 288-89 (2017). The Court found that Defendant could reasonably believe he was no longer free to leave when the officer radioed a description of Defendant to another officer. The officer’s actions constituted an unlawful stop. Reversed and remanded.