State v. Radtke

Under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, whether a person has been seized depends on whether a reasonable person would believe an officer intentionally and significantly restricted, interfered with, or otherwise deprived the person of his or her liberty or freedom of movement, which is a fact-specific inquiry dependent on examination of the totality of the circumstances.

Defendant Radtke (Defendant) appealed the denial of her motion to suppress evidence used to convict her of possession of methamphetamine. During an encounter with a Marion County Sheriff's Deputy (the Deputy), the Deputy believed Defendant was under the influence of a stimulant but did not believe this was sufficient to justify further investigation. The Deputy requested Defendant's identification and asked Defendant if he could search her pockets for drugs. Defendant declined but offered to show the Deputy the contents of her pockets; during this process, Defendant tried to conceal a bag with a white substance, which later was found to be methamphetamine. Defendant moved to suppress this evidence at trial but the motion was denied. The Court held because the Deputy's behavior was nonconfrontational and his questioning was not extensive nor intrusive, the Deputy's conduct was not a show of authority that amounted to an unlawful seizure of Defendant under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. Affirmed.