State v. Madden

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Post-Conviction Relief
  • Date Filed: 02-01-2017
  • Case #: A155807
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, P.J. for the Court; Hadlock, C.J.; & Tookey, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under State v. Bates, 304 Or 519 (1987), a seizure under the officer safety warrant exception must be supported by reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that Defendant posed an immediate threat of serious physical injury to the officer or to others then present.

Defendant appealed his conviction of three drug-related charges (ORS 475.890 and ORS 475.894)(possession and distribution) and firearm charge (ORS 166.270) (felon with a firearm). Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the trial court erred in concluding that the seizure of defendant that led to the discovery of evidence was justified by officer safety concerns. The specific safety concerns cited by the officers were (1) that the passenger in Defendant’s car was known to the police as a drug dealer who was “pretty skilled” with nunchuks and (2) the search warrant being served by police at the adjacent “flop house” meant that the police did not want to leave the suspects unsecured. Applying the test set to determine the validity of officer safety concerns set out by the Supreme Court in State v. Bates, 304 Or 519 (1987), the Court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion based specific and articulable facts that Defendant posed an immediate threat of serious physical injury to the officer or to others then present, and upheld the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress. Affirmed.

 

Advanced Search