State v. Rodriguez

An officer’s initiation of a stop must be based on an objectively reasonable inference of illegal activity by that person, under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time of the stop. State v. Dampier, 244 Or App 547, 551, 260 P3d 730 (2011).

Defendant appealed from two judgments: a judgment convicting him of felon in possession of a firearm under ORS 166.270(1), and a judgment revoking his “second look” conditional release in an unrelated case. Defendant assigned error to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, which was discovered after he was stopped. On appeal, Defendant argued that the officers stopped him without reasonable suspicion that Defendant had committed a crime or had made an unlawful firearm purchase. The State argued that the officers had specific and articulable facts to support a reasonable belief that Defendant was involved in a type of unlawful firearm crime. An officer’s initiation of a stop must be based on an objectively reasonable inference of illegal activity by that person, under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time of the stop. State v. Dampier, 244 Or App 547, 551, 260 P3d 730 (2011). The Court found the totality of the circumstances did not support a reasonable belief that Defendant had committed a crime at the time of the stop. The Court held the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. Reversed and remanded.