State v. Nelson

“When an officer ‘makes a direct and unambiguous accusation’ that an individual has committed a violation or crime, the officer has stopped that individual.” State v. Jackson, 268 Or app 139, 149, 342 P3d 119 (2014).

Defendant appealed a conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress. On appeal, Defendant argued that the officer unlawfully stopped her when he confronted her with his belief and observations that she was under the influence of methamphetamine, asked her if she possessed any illegal substances, and told her that she could easily prove him wrong by consenting to a search of her purse. In response, the State argued that, under the totality of the circumstances, the interaction between the officer and Defendant did not implicate Article I, Section 9, until after Defendant consented to the search of her purse. “When an officer ‘makes a direct and unambiguous accusation’ that an individual has committed a violation or crime, the officer has stopped that individual.” State v. Jackson, 268 Or App 139, 149, 342 P3d 119 (2014). The Court of Appeals held that the statements made by the officer went beyond conveying suspicion and were more than merely engaging in an inquiry about unlawful drug possession, constituting a stop. Reversed and remanded.