State v. Fuller

The Court must evaluate whether “the specific and articulate facts known to [the deputy] give rise to a reasonable inference that the defendant was transporting firewood ‘away from harvest or collection site.’” State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 165, 389 P3d 1121 (2017).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for unlawfully transporting special forest products (ORS 164.813(3)). Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress. Defendant argued that it was erroneous for the trial court to conclude that the deputy who stopped him had reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant for unlawfully transporting special forest products. In response, the state argued that the deputy had reasonable suspicion based on his observations, the time of night, the type of wood, and the absence of a visible permit to transport wood. The Court must evaluate whether “the specific and articulable facts known to [the deputy] give rise to a reasonable inference that the defendant was transporting firewood ‘away from harvest or collection site.’” State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 165, 389 P3d 1121 (2017). The Court held that the specific and articulable facts could not support the deputy’s suspicion for stopping the defendant. There was no evidence shown at the suppression hearing that the deputy knew where the wood that Defendant was hauling was from, that he knew Defendant needed a permit to haul this wood, or that it came from a collection site. Reversed and remanded.