State v. Campbell

Whether a police-citizen interaction rises beyond a mere encounter to the level of a seizure under Article I, section 9, depends on whether a reasonable person would believe that an officer has intentionally and significantly restricted, interfered with, or otherwise deprived a citizen of his or her liberty or freedom of movement; for police to seize an individual under Article I, section 9, an individual must have an objectively reasonable perception that police are exercising coercive authority; asking for identification is not enough to show coercive authority.

Defendant appealed judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. He assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant was going through his book bag on a park bench in a known drug area. Police stopped Defendant and asked what was going on, asked for his identification, and whether they could search him. Defendant consented to the search. Before they could inventory his pockets, one officer noted an orange cap sticking out of Defendant's book bag, like that of a hypodermic needle. The officer went to look in bag, and Defendant lunged. Defendant argued police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him, in violation of Article 1, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court found Defendant was not "stopped" for purposes of Article 1, Section 9 and denied his motion to suppress the physical evidence and derivative statements. An officer's request for identification is not alone enough to create a seizure for purposes of Article 1, Section 9. If Defendant had been aware police were using his identification to run a warrant check, the interaction may have rose to the level of seizure. However, Defendant was not aware of this, and therefore the interaction did not rise to the level of seizure. Affirmed.