State v. Martin

Under State v. Jackson, 268 Or App 139, a person is unconstitutionally seized when an officer communicates to the person that they are the subject of an investigation “that could result in the person’s citation or arrest at that time and place” without reasonable suspicion that the person violated the law.

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 law enforcement’s seizure was unconstitutional because when police approached they incorrectly stated the the law. Under State v. Jackson, 268 Or App 139, a person is unconstitutionally seized when an officer communicates to the person that they are the subject of an investigation “that could result in the person’s citation or arrest at that time and place” without reasonable suspicion that the person violated the law. The Court found that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion of the ordinance violation because it applied only to public property, but Defendant was on private property, rendering the stop unlawful. The Court explained that the evidence must be suppressed because the state failed to show that the illegal stop did not taint the evidence obtained therefrom. Reversed and remanded.