State v. Wiseman

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 08-17-2011
  • Case #: A143704
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Nakamoto, J. for the Court; Schuman, P.J. and Wollheim, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

When determining whether an officer has an objective reasonable suspicion that a crime is in progress, the facts must be viewed in the totality of the circumstances and consideration must be given to the officer’s experience and training.

A homeowner phoned the police about a truck parked in front of her house at 1:50 a.m. The homeowner also reported a person approaching a truck on a bicycle and loading it in the back of the truck. An officer, who was aware of the high-property character of the neighborhood and the techniques burglars use to steal bicycles, responded to the call. As the officer passed the defendant, who was a passenger in the vehicle, the officer observed “furtive behavior” by the truck driver and defendant. The officer stopped and searched the vehicle finding various criminal paraphernalia. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized during the stop. On appeal, the Court determined that the officer had an objective “reasonable suspicion” that the defendant had committed a crime. The Court explained that the individual facts alone would not rise to “reasonable suspicion,” but viewing the totality of the circumstances with the officer’s experience satisfied “reasonable suspicion” under ORS 131.606. Reverse and remanded.

Advanced Search