State v. Wampler

“Reasonable suspicion has a subjective and an objective component: an officer has reasonable suspicion when the officer subjectively believes that the person has committed a crime and that belief is objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstance.” State v. Moore, 264 Or App 86, 89, 331 P3d 1027 (2014).

Defendant was convicted for offenses relating “to supplying methamphetamine to his son’s 15-year-old girlfriend in exchange for sexual acts,” after police found Defendant alone with the girl in a parked van. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing the officer did not have sufficient reasonable suspicion to support the stop. “Reasonable suspicion has a subjective and an objective component: an officer has reasonable suspicion when the officer subjectively believes that the person has committed a crime and that belief is objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstance.” State v. Moore, 264 Or App 86, 89, 331 P3d 1027 (2014). The Court concluded that the totality of the circumstances indicated that it was subjectively reasonable for the officer to stop the Defendant due to suspicion of criminal trespass, and to extend the stop due to suspicion of unlawful drug and sexual activity. The Court also concluded that the initial stop was objectively reasonable as a person in Defendant’s position would have believed the area was not open to the public because Defendant’s van was parked on a narrow and unpaved private road 650 feet away from the highway blocking access to a private gate. Also, the court reasoned that extending the stop was reasonable because questions relating to the passenger’s age and identity were pertinent to the investigation of criminal trespass, and during that investigation, the officer observed a “makeshift drug smoking device” hanging from Defendant’s steering wheel. The Court remanded, however, because the state conceded the trial court’s acceptance of nonunanimous verdicts was error. In Case No. 18CR60267, convictions on Counts 7, 15, and 24 reversed and remanded; remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed. In Case No. 19CR10804, remanded for resentencing; otherwise affirmed.