State v. McKibben

“A person is “seized” for purposes of Article I, Section 9 in either one of two situations: “(a) if a law enforcement officer intentionally and significantly restricts, interferes with, or otherwise deprives an individual of that individual’s liberty or freedom of movement; or (b) if a reasonable person under the totality of the circumstances would believe that (a) above has occurred.” State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297, 316 (2010) (emphasis in original; footnote omitted).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. Defendant argued that the officer unlawfully seized him under Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution because, upon asking for identification, the officer began asking questions regarding the content of his bag and lacked reasonable suspicion to do so. The State argued that the officer had reasonable suspicion after the officer saw methamphetamine pipes in defendant’s possession. “A person is “seized” for purposes of Article I, Section 9 in either one of two situations: “(a) if a law enforcement officer intentionally and significantly restricts, interferes with, or otherwise deprives an individual of that individual’s liberty or freedom of movement; or (b) if a reasonable person under the totality of the circumstances would believe that (a) above has occurred.” State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297, 316 (2010) (emphasis in original; footnote omitted). The Court reasoned that, because a reasonable person in defendant’s position would have believed that he was not free to go when the officer requested identification and began questioning him, this constituted a “seizure.” The Court held that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. Reversed and remanded.