State v. Nichols

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 03-04-2015
  • Case #: A151058
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J., for the Court; Egan, J; & De Muniz, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A court can look to the cumulative “specific and articulable facts” as set out in State v. Holdorf where even if the individual “specific and articulable facts” in and of themselves are not to a level of reasonable suspicion, if under the totality of the circumstances the facts indicate a level of reasonable suspicion, then there is sufficient reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop.

Defendant appealed his conviction of driving under the influence of intoxicants (DUII) wherein he contended that trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress of evidence. Pursuant to the Oregon Supreme Court's recent decision in State v. Holdorf, 355 Or 812, 822-23, 333 P3d 982 (2014), this Court affirmed the allowance of evidence. Holdorf explained that what constitutes reasonable suspicion for an investigatory stop is if an officer can point to “specific and articulable facts that a person has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime.” This Court held that the “specific and articulable facts” may be held under totality of the circumstances. Even though the individual acts of Defendant would not have been enough to create reasonable suspicion, under the totality of the circumstances there was enough for the police officer to conduct an investigatory stop. Affirmed.

Advanced Search