State v. Tapp

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 03-29-2017
  • Case #: A157547
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Lagesen, J. for the Court; Ortega, P.J.; & Garrett, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under Article I, section 9, an officer has reasonable suspicion to extend a stop for investigatory purposes if the officer suspects the person has committed or was about to commit a specific crime. State v Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163 (2017).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for one count of unlawful delivery of marijuana (ORS 475.860), and one count of unlawful possession of marijuana (ORS 475.864). Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, Defendant argued the officer unlawfully extended a traffic stop because the officer did not have reasonable suspicion Defendant was engaged in drug trafficking. Under Article I, section 9, “an officer has reasonable suspicion to… extend the stop of a suspect for investigatory purposes if the officer ‘actually suspect[s] that the stopped person had committed a specific crime, or was about to commit a specific crime, or type of crime’ and if that officer’s ‘subjective belief was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time of the stop.’” State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 182 (2017). For an officer’s subjective belief to be objectively reasonable, the information must be derived from “specific training” and “recent personal experience.” State v. Valdez, 227 Or 621, 628 (1977). The Court held the officer lacked reasonable suspicion because he suspected generalized criminal activity, not a specific crime, as required under Maciel-Figueroa. Further, the generalized suspicion was not objectively reasonable because it was not derived from training or experience, but rather something the officer had heard about from other officers. Reversed and remanded. 

Advanced Search