State v. Canfield

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 10-08-2014
  • Case #: A143570
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Wollheim, P.J. for the Court; Nakamoto, J.; and Schuman, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

When a police officer requests identification from a person, the request alone, without more, does not constitute a stop for purposes of Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.

This was a reconsideration of the case on remand, in light of recent precedent from the Oregon Supreme Court, which vacated the Court’s prior decision. The State challenged the Court’s earlier decision that the trial court had erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence in his trial for unlawful delivery of marijuana. The Court, in its prior decision, had found that the police officer unlawfully stopped Defendant. An officer had seen Defendant cross a street, and then enter the passenger side of a car in a parking lot. The car was then driven to a different parking spot in the same lot. The driver exited the car and walked toward a nearby restaurant. The officer approached Defendant, told Defendant that he thought what had just occurred was “strange,” and asked for identification, which Defendant provided. The officer asked Defendant if he had drugs or weapons, and asked for consent to search. Defendant consented to a search and disclosed that he had a pipe in his possession, which the officer inferred was a marijuana pipe. The officer told Defendant he was free to leave, and upon searching found a pipe and marijuana residue. The driver consented to a search of the car, where the officer found marijuana. The officer arrested Defendant based on statements made by Defendant and the driver. Defendant had argued at trial that the officer’s conduct amounted to an unlawful stop. He contended that, under the circumstances, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave. The Court held that there was no unlawful stop, and found that an officer’s request for identification alone, and nothing more, does not alone constitute a stop. It further reasoned that nothing in the record indicated that the officer intentionally or significantly interfered with, or otherwise deprived Defendant of his liberty or freedom of movement. Affirmed.

Advanced Search