State v. Dudley

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 09-08-2011
  • Case #: A137482
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Brewer, C.J. for the Court; Haselton, P.J.; & Armstrong, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A seizure of a person occurs if a law enforcement officer “intentionally and significantly” restricts that person’s movement or if a reasonable person based on the “totality of the circumstances” would believe their movement was restricted.

The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress controlled substances found in her purse. Defendant argued that she had been unlawfully seized because the arresting officer had restricted her movement during a vehicle stop. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument because the law enforcement officer did not intentionally and significantly restrict the defendant’s freedom. The Officer did not significantly “show authority” when he asked to search defendant’s purse, nor when defendant was asked to get out of the car. The Court found that defendant was free to leave at any point, and any reasonable person would have believed they could have done so. Affirmed.

Advanced Search