State v. Thier

Under Article I, section 9, a seizure occurs 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 the circumstances, would believe that his or her liberty or freedom of movement has been significantly restricted.” State v. Reyes-Herrera, 369 Or 54, 58 (2021).

Defendant appealed her conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm and escape in the third degree. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence. Defendant argued that she was unjustifiably seized and stopped. Defendant argued that it was reasonable for her to believe that she was under criminal investigation, and she was restrained. Under Article I, section 9, a seizure occurs 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 the circumstances, would believe that his or her liberty or freedom of movement has been significantly restricted.” State v. Reyes-Herrera, 369 Or 54, 58 (2021). The Court held that the officer’s actions and words did not significantly restrain the defendant. The officer asked for ID, however his actions were not coupled with any coercive actions, and he did not obtain her ID and proceed to question or interrogate Defendant. The Court found that nothing the officer did was sufficiently coercive as to convey to a reasonable person that they were detained. Affirmed.