State v. Brown

Mere proximity to suspected criminal activity, or association with a suspected or known criminal, is insufficient to support reasonable suspicion. State v. Kingsmith, 256 Or App 762, 772, 302 P3d 471 (2013).

Defendant, a passenger in a vehicle subject to an investigatory stop, appealed a judgment of conviction for felony possession of methamphetamine. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in concluding that the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion of UUV, and thus violated Article I, section 9. In response, the State argued that “it was objectively reasonable for [the officer] to believe that [the car] was stolen, based on the make and age of the car, the driver’s elusive behavior, and the fact that the driver did not match the gender or location of the car’s registered owners.” Mere proximity to suspected criminal activity, or association with a suspected or known criminal, is insufficient to support reasonable suspicion. State v. Kingsmith, 256 Or App 762, 772, 302 P3d 471 (2013). The Court was “unprepared to say that merely being a passenger in a car that an officer suspects to be stolen and walking away from the car without volunteering to talk with the police is sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion of UUV.” Even assuming the officer “had objectively reasonable suspicion that [the car] was stolen, that suspicion [was] premised entirely on the driver’s conduct—yet individualized suspicion as to defendant is required to satisfy Article I, section 9.” Thus, the Court held that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. Reversed and remanded.