State v. Wilson

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 02-23-2017
  • Case #: A158275
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Devore, J. for the Court; Duncan, P.J.; & Haselton, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

The officer safety doctrine is supported by an officer’s “reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that an individual ‘might pose an immediate threat of serious physical injury’ to officers or others” State. Bates, 304 Or 519, 524-25 (1987).

Defendant was convicted for interfering with a peace officer (ORS 162.247) after refusing to comply with police orders to exit a vehicle. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. Defendant appealed on the grounds that (1) the stop was not lawful; and (2) the officer safety doctrine did not justify the order to exit. An order to get out of a car is lawful if meant to ensure officer safety, but must be based on the totality of circumstances. State v. Bistrika, 261 Or App 710, 718 (2014). The officer safety doctrine is supported by an officer’s “reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that an individual ‘might pose an immediate threat of serious physical injury’ to officers or others” State. Bates, 304 Or 519, 524-25 (1987). Based on the totality of the circumstances, there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to determine the officer safety doctrine justified the officer's order to exit the vehicle. Affirmed. 

Advanced Search