State v. Humphrey

Reasonable suspicion exists when an officer can point to specific and articulable facts that give rise to a reasonable inference that the defendant committed or was about to commit a specific crime or type of crime.

Defendant’s argument for appealing his conviction of second-degree assault, unlawful use of a weapon, and menacing, rests on his contention that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence gathered during his police encounter. Defendant argued on appeal that the initial stop by the police officers was not supported by reasonable suspicion. The Oregon Court of Appeals rejected the defendant’s assignment of error and cited the court’s finding of when reasonable suspicion exists in State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 165, 389 P.3d 1121 (2017): “When an officer can point to specific and articulable facts that give rise to a reasonable inference that the defendant committed or was about to commit a specific crime or type of crime.” Using this finding, the court concluded that the officer did have reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant because of his proximity to the crime scene and because his physical description met the description she heard on the police radio. Therefore, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.