State v. Payne

A passenger in a traffic stop is lawfully seized when there is "something more” than a mere traffic violation. State v. T.T., 308 Or App 408, 418, 479 P3d 598 (2021). Safety concerns are a legitimate justification for seizure when the totality of circumstances show: (1) there are “specific and articulable facts” that establish a “reasonable suspicion” that the person poses an “immediate threat to the officer’s or another person’s safety,” and (2) the officer’s actions were reasonable. State v. Madden, 363 Or 703, 713, 427 P3d 157 (2018).

Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle, stopped after the driver eluded an officer’s attempts to stop the vehicle. Defendant appealed convictions of escape, resisting arrest, and possession of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of both his motion to suppress and his motion for judgment of acquittal.  Defendant argued his seizure was unlawful, resulting evidence was inadmissible, and he was entitled to a judgment of acquittal. The State argued that the officer correctly seized the defendant under the officer-safety doctrine, as such, all evidence that resulted from the seizure was properly admitted by the trial court. A passenger in a traffic stop is lawfully seized when there is "something more” than a mere traffic violation. State v. T.T., 308 Or App 408, 418, 479 P3d 598 (2021). Safety concerns are a legitimate justification for seizure when the totality of circumstances show: (1) there are “specific and articulable facts” that establish a “reasonable suspicion” that the person poses an “immediate threat to the officer’s or another person’s safety,” and (2) the officer’s actions were reasonable. State v. Madden, 363 Or 703, 713, 427 P3d 157 (2018). Here, the Court found circumstances beyond those of a traffic stop, the behavior of the passenger was reasonably perceived as a threat by the officer, and the officer secured the scene by taking reasonable precautions. Affirmed.