State v. Parker

The guiding principle in determining whether an encounter is a constitutionally significant seizure is whether the officer had manifested a “show of authority” that intentionally and significantly restricts an individuals’ liberty.

This case is on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court for a second time. The court concludes that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. This court had initially vacated the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found during the search of defendant’s person and remanded it. However, the Supreme Court reversed the decision in State v. Ashbaugh, which held that a subjective test should be applied to determine whether a defendant had been stopped. Therefore, it vacated the initial judgement of this court. This issue is whether the encounter between defendant and the officers constituted a seizure. The guiding principle in determining whether an encounter is a constitutionally significant seizure is whether the officer had manifested a “show of authority” that intentionally and significantly restricts an individuals’ liberty. The court found that here the defendant was not stopped because the officer’s actions did not amount to a “show of authority.” Under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would not have believed that his or her liberty was restrained. The officer did not convey to the defendant that he was not free to terminate the encounter. The court concludes, the defendant was not seized for purposes of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. Affirmed.