State v. Smith

Under ORS 162.247(1)(b), a “lawful order” must be given by a peace officer, and—in the case at hand—it has to be supported by reasonable suspicion.

Defendant appeal his conviction of interfering with a peace officer (IPO). Defendant assigned error to the denial of a motion for judgement of acquittal by the trial court. Defendant argued on appeal the officer had no reasonable suspicion, and could not prevent him from leaving. Therefore, his detainment should be considered an unconstitutional stop. The State argued in response that (1) the officer had reasonable suspicion to order the Defendant to stay, and (2) additionally, the defendant was a “material witness to a crime” so the officer could prevent him from leaving. Under ORS 162.247(1)(b), a “lawful order” must be given by a peace officer, and—in the case at hand—it has to be supported by reasonable suspicion. The Court found that the officer in this case did not have reasonable suspicion, or another reason to detain Defendant. Thus, an officer order for defendant to remain was not a "lawful order" if the officer had no reasonable suspicion that the defendant was about to or had committed a crime, and therefore the officer’s stop would be unconstitutional. Conviction on  Count 3 reversed; remanded for reentering; otherwise affirmed.