- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 04-13-2016
- Case #: A155126
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Hadlock, C.J. for the Court; & Sercombe, P.J.; Tookey, J., dissenting.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed a conviction for possession of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, arguing the officer lacked the "reasonable suspicion" to initiate the stop. The officer relied on information he received from an informant as well as what he had observed to determine that there was reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop. Under the standard in State v. Holdorf, 355 Or 812, 823, 333 P3d 982 (2014), an officer has “reasonable suspicion” to initiate a stop if the officer can identify “specific and articulable facts” that a person has committed, or is about to commit a crime. The “reasonable suspicion” standard required in order to stop a citizen is less than the “probable cause” standard necessary to arrest. The Court held that the officer properly considered all the information available to him as a series of events that did meet the reasonable suspicion standard. Affirmed.