State v. Glickert

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Evidence
  • Date Filed: 06-08-2022
  • Case #: A171986
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Mooney, P.J. for the Court; Pagán, J; & DeVore, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

“The ‘critical question’ that distinguishes ‘relaxed conversation’ from ‘coercive questioning’ is … whether, given all the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that their freedom of movement [is] being significantly restricted.” State v. Reyes-Herrera, 500 P.3d 1 at 61-62 (Or. 2021).

Defendant appealed a conviction for possession of methamphetamine. Police stopped Defendant in vehicle while on private property as she was leaving a residence connected with suspected drug activity. While officers were asking Defendant questions, Defendant admitted to drug use and turned over a methamphetamine pipe. Defendant assigned error to the court for denying her motion to suppress based on an unlawful seizure under Article 1, section 9 of the Oregon state constitution. Defendant argues that this interaction constitutes a stop by criminal accusation. The State argued the police encounter was a “noncoercive conversation,” and a reasonable person in Defendant’s position would have believed they were free to go if they chose. Distinguishing a ‘relaxed conversation’ from ‘coercive questioning’ “is whether, given all the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that their freedom of movement was being significantly restricted.” State v. Reyes-Herrera, 500 P.3d 1 at 61-62 (Or. 2021). The Court found that the moment the police officer confirmed Defendant’s name and informed her of an investigation, she was unlawfully seized under Article I, section 9. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search


Back to Top