State v. Zaccone

A defendant is seized for the purposes of Article I, section 9 of the Oregon constitution when a reasonable person similarly situated would believe that their freedom of movement is significantly restricted by a police officer’s show of authority.

Defendant was originally a passenger in a vehicle stopped for a traffic violation. After approaching the car and asking for identification, Officer Rilling ran a warrant check on defendant, and confirmed that he had provided false information. After further warrant checks and suspicious behavior by defendant, Rilling asked to search the car. During the search he found burglary tools, a book with people’s identifications and social security numbers, and drugs. Defendant argued that that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress that evidence. On appeal, the Court of Appeals addressed only whether defendant was seized for the purposes of Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. The Court found that because a reasonable person under the same circumstances would have had reason to believe that their freedom of movement was restricted by the police officer’s show of authority, defendant was seized for the purposes of Article I, section 9. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motions to suppress. Reversed and remanded.