State v. Meeker

In determining whether an officer’s objective belief is reasonable, we look at “the totality of the circumstances as they reasonably appeared to the officer at the time” that must be based on “facts specific to the particular person” and cannot be based on “intuition or a generalized fear that the person may pose a threat to the officer’s safety.” State v. Jackson, 190 Or App 194 (2003), rev den, 337 Or 182 (2004).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for possession of heroin and possession of a controlled substance. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, Defendant argued that his seizure was unjustified, that the officer safety exception to the warrant requirement did not apply, and that the officer did not have objectively reasonable suspicion or probable cause of criminal activity. In response, the State argued that the officer safety exception applied as the officer had reasonable subjective and objective concerns for his safety. In determining whether an officer’s objective belief is reasonable, we look at “the totality of the circumstances as they reasonably appeared to the officer at the time” based on “facts specific to the particular person” and not be based on “intuition or a generalized fear that the person may pose a threat to the officer’s safety.” State v. Jackson, 190 Or App 194 (2003), rev den, 337 Or 182 (2004). The Court of Appeals held that the officer’s objective belief was not reasonable because he based his seizure on generalized facts that were not connected to the Defendant. Reversed and remanded.