State v. Worthington

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 09-10-2014
  • Case #: A150427
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Sercombe, J.; and Hadlock, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Reasonable suspicion to make a stop must be supported by the totality of the circumstances and the police officer’s application of his experience to interpret those circumstances.

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for first-degree robbery, first-degree burglary, and second-degree assault. A police officer found Defendant approximately 75 yards from a store, 45 minutes after it was robbed. Defendant matched the height description, seemed nervous, and gave the police officer a suspicious story about his whereabouts; however, his body type and clothing did not match the description. Defendant consented to a pat down by the police officer and confessed to the robbery afterwards. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress because it was discovered after he was stopped without reasonable suspicion. The Court held that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress because the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion that Defendant was involved in criminal activity at the time of the stop. To support reasonable suspicion, the Court considered the totality of the circumstances and the police officer’s application of his experience to interpret those circumstances. Affirmed.

Advanced Search