State v. Vannoy

“Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, ‘a seizure occurs when (1) a police 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. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 701 (2019).

Defendant was a passenger in a van that was stopped for speeding. Upon approaching the van, the officer “smelled a strong odor of marijuana emitting from inside the vehicle.” During the officer’s search of the van, he found Defendant’s handbag under the passenger seat and asked Defendant’s consent to search it. The officer found methamphetamine in Defendant’s handbag. Defendant was convicted of one count of unlawful possession of methamphetamine. On appeal, Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress the evidence found during the officer’s search of the vehicle. Defendant argued that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion at the time he asked her consent to search her handbag because the officer’s “marijuana investigation was directed at all occupants of the van and not the driver alone.” “Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, ‘a seizure occurs when (1) a police 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. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 701 (2019). The Court reasoned that “the nature of the [traffic] stop quickly shifted” to an investigation of an illegal amount of marijuana possession directed at all occupants of the vehicle when the officer demanded proof from both the driver and the passenger that there was not an illegal amount of marijuana in the van. Thus, by the time the officer asked Defendant’s consent to search her handbag she would already have understood that she was not free to leave. The Court held, under the “totality of the circumstances,” the atmosphere surrounding the officer’s marijuana investigation were sufficiently coercive to be considered a stop of Defendant without reasonable suspicion, and the trial court erred in denying her motion to supress. Reversed and remanded.