State v. Johnson

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 11-16-2022
  • Case #: A172361
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Shorr, J.; & Powers, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

“An encounter rises to a seizure when (1) a law enforcement officer intentionally and significantly interferes with an individual’s liberty or freedom of movement, or (2) a reasonable person under the totality of circumstances would believe that his or her liberty or freedom of movement has been significantly restricted.” State v. Ashbuagh, 349 Or 297 (2010).

Defendant appealed a judgment finding him in contempt of a restraining order after he was found in possession of a firearm. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the firearm. On appeal, Defendant argued that he was illegally stopped and, alternatively that the interaction became a stop when the officer told him to place his hands on his head as he retrieved the firearm from Defendant's pocket, as well as when the officer locked the gun in his vehicle, making Defendant unable to end the counter with law enforcement without his property. In response, the State argued that Defendant was not stopped under the totality of circumstances. The State also argued that even if Defendant was found to be stopped, the officer safety exceptions to a warrant requirement constitutionally justified the stop. “An encounter rises to a seizure when (1) a law enforcement officer intentionally and significantly interferes with an individual’s liberty or freedom of movement, or (2) a reasonable person under the totality of circumstances would believe that his or her liberty or freedom of movement has been significantly restricted.” State v. Ashbuagh, 349 Or 297 (2010). The Court found that because Defendant had voluntarily encountered the officer the encounter did not constitute a stop. The Court also determined that the officer’s conduct of retrieving the firearm from Defendant's pocket did not constitute a seizure because the officer asked to secure the firearm in his vehicle temporarily, and Defendant had voluntarily complied. Affirmed.

Advanced Search


Back to Top