State v. Prouty

Under State v. Newton, 286 Or App 274 (2017), a person may be seized when the totality of the circumstances “transform[s] the encounter into a seizure, even if the circumstances, individually, would not create a seizure.”

Defendant appealed convictions for several drug crimes stemming from a traffic stop in which he was the passenger. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, Defendant argued that he was unlawfully seized under the Oregon Constitution. The state responded that Defendant was not seized and that, even if he was, such seizure was justified by officer-safety concerns. Under State v. Newton, 286 Or App 274 (2017), a person may be seized when the totality of the circumstances “transform[s] the encounter into a seizure, even if the circumstances, individually, would not create a seizure.” The Court found that the time and location of the traffic stop, presence of two officers at the scene, instruction to exit the vehicle without explanation, directive to follow officer instructions, and positioning of the officers relative to Defendant, all contributed to a situation where “a reasonable person *** [would not feel] ‘free to terminate the encounter.’” The Court held that although each circumstance individually would not constitute a seizure, the circumstances combined “form[ed] a whole greater than the sum of its parts,” a seizure. The Court also found that the state failed to prove that the stop was justified for officer-safety reasons. Reversed and remanded.