State v. Orman

Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution protects individuals’ rights against unreasonable searches or seizures. When  an  encounter  advances  from  a  conversation  to the point of an investigatory stop, and thus a seizure of the  individual,  the  stop  must  be  accompanied  by  reasonable  suspicion.  State v. Backstrand, 354 Or 392, 399 (2013) (citing  State  v.  Fair,  353  Or  588,  593-94 (2013)). Absent reasonable suspicion, a  stop  is  unlawful,  and  all  evidence  discovered  as  a  result  of  the  unlawful  police  action  is  presumptively  tainted  by  the violation and must be suppressed. State v. Newton, 286 Or  App  274,  288 (2017).

Defendant appealed a conviction for seven counts of identity theft, one count of second-degree forgery, and one count of unlawful possession of heroin. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence that was discovered after a warrantless search during a traffic stop in which he was a passenger. He argued that the evidence was tainted because this was an illegal seizure.  

Article I, Section 9, of the Oregon Constitution protects individuals’ rights against unreasonable searches or seizures. When an encounter advances  from  a  conversation  to the point of an investigatory stop, and thus a seizure of the  individual,  the  stop  must  be  accompanied  by  reasonable  suspicion.  State v. Backstrand, 354 Or 392, 399 (2013) (citing  State  v.  Fair,  353  Or  588,  593-94 (2013)). Absent reasonable suspicion, a  stop  is  unlawful,  and  all  evidence  discovered  as  a  result  of  the  unlawful  police  action  is  presumptively  tainted  by  the violation and must be suppressed. State v. Newton, 286 Or  App  274,  288  (2017).

The Court found that Defendant had been seized because the officer retained Defendant’s identification past a “reasonable period for purposes of examining and verifying” when he kept the license during the entire encounter while investigating other crimes. Backstrand, 354 Or at 416. Further, the Court found that the officer had not developed a reasonable suspicion prior to the time of the stop. Thus, the Court held, the evidence obtained during the stop should have been suppressed because it was tainted by an unlawful stop. Reversed and Remanded.