State v. Norton

Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution protects individuals from incriminating evidence when the individual initiates the contact with the officer and the conversation morphs into a seizure, even when that evidence is given with consent.

Defendant appealed a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon and a conviction for being a felon in possession of a restricted weapon. Defendant challenges the district court’s denial of Defendant’s argument that the evidence should be suppressed because it was the product of an unlawful search and thus violated Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. Since Defendant consented to the search the Court examines whether the search was the product of an illegal detention. While the Defendant initially engaged the officer in conversation the Court finds that the nature of the conversation morphed from being voluntary to being a seizure. Once the conversation became a seizure the Court looked to see if there was reasonable suspicion for the officer’s line of questioning. Finding that there was no reasonable suspicion the Court held that the evidence was unlawfully obtained and vacated the judgment. Reversed and remanded.