State v. Gibbons

• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
• Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
• Date Filed: 06-03-2015
• Case #: A155505
• Judge(s)/Court Below: PER CURIAM. Duncan, P.J.; Lagesen, J.; & Flynn, J.

Under Article I, Section 20 of the Oregon Constitution, a police officer's decision to randomly "run" the plates of a car is constitutional if that officer's decision resulted from a confluence of training, time, and opportunity, and that officer would have "run" the plates from any other passing driver.

Defendant appealed a trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained by a police officer when that officer randomly "ran" Defendant's plate as he drove past. Defendant argued that Article I, Section 20 prohibits police officers from denying any individual defendant an equal privilege with any other citizen of the state, and that the officer's decision to "run" Defendant's plates unconstitutionally targeted Defendant. The Court disagreed, finding that the evidence led to the inference that the officer's decision to "run" Defendant's license plates resulted from a confluence;of training, time, and opportunity, and that officer would have "run" Defendant's plates. Affirmed.

Share Subscribe