State v. Clink

The protections of Article I, sec. 9 of the Oregon Constitution against unreasonable seizures can be overcome by an officer's reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances.

Defendant appealed a conviction for the unlawful possession of methamphetamines. Defendant argued that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to seize Defendant. Article 1, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution protects the right of people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. In the present case Defendant was stopped, which constituted a seizure. For a seizure to be reasonable the officer must have reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity. An officer has reasonable suspicion that a person has or is about to commit a crime if the officer holds a subjective belief that is objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts that give rise to the reasonable inference that a person has committed a crime. The officer may call on training and experience as well as a reliable report from an informant to make reasonable factual inferences. In this case the officer had a reliable informant that suggested criminal activity and also observed suspicious activity. In addition, Defendant’s passenger was a known methamphetamine user. Based on the totality of the circumstances the officer had reasonable suspicion. Affirmed.