Oregon v. Hunt

ORS 131.615. The reasonable suspicion of an officer to ask someone for identification and run a warrant check reasonably related to an investigation is justified if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that that person has committed a crime.

Defendant appealed a conviction judgment for unlawfully possessing heroin, ORS 475.854. On the night of the incident in question the Defendant and a friend were staying at a motel. Other motel guests complained to the clerk that they had seen two “girls” involved in behavior that appeared to be the weighing and selling of drugs in a car outside of their room. The clerk then called the police who then spoke with the two women and conducted a surface search of the room. After an unproductive search of the room, a car drove through the parking lot and sped away when the driver saw the police. The defendant identified the driver as her boyfriend. After telling one of the officers that they could look inside of a small bag Defendant was found in possession of a needle with heroin residue on it. Defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress the evidence that she claimed was secured without the officers having a reasonable suspicion to stop her. The trial court said the description of the vehicle by the motel clerk, and then its reappearance, was enough suspicion to warrant a search and continue the stop. The Court determines that the officers did have reasonable suspicion to stop the Defendant under Article 1, Section 9, or the Oregon Constitution. The stop was reasonable because it was based on the officer’s subjective that a crime had been committed which was deemed objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances in light of the report made by the motel clerk. Affirmed.