State v. Middleton

“The test for whether an encounter is a ‘seizure’ is whether the officer ‘intentionally and significantly restricts, interferes with, or otherwise deprives an individual’s liberty or freedom of movement,’ or whether ‘a reasonable person under the totality of the circumstances would believe that [that] has occurred.’” State v. Fair, 353 Or 588, 594, 302 P3d 417 (2013).

Defendant appealed his conviction for DUII assigning error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, Defendant argued he was stopped and seized without reasonable suspicion that he committed a crime in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. In response, the State argued the Defendant was not seized, and if he was seized, it was lawful because Defendant was a “material witness” or was reasonably suspected of committing a crime. “The test for whether an encounter is a ‘seizure’ is whether the officer ‘intentionally and significantly restricts, interferes with, or otherwise deprives an individual’s liberty or freedom of movement,’ or whether ‘a reasonable person under the totality of the circumstances would believe that [that] has occurred.’” State v. Fair, 353 Or 588, 594, 302 P3d 417 (2013). The Court found the traffic stop of Defendant was a seizure because the officer had no information as to when the accident in question occurred, whether the vehicle was involved in a crime, or whether any passerby was a witness. The Court held that the stop, which was the result of the officer’s suspicion and not for a traffic violation, was more than a “mere encounter” because the Defendant was not free to leave, nor would a reasonable person in his position believe that he was. Reversed and remanded.