- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 09-20-2017
- Case #: A161096
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Shorr, J. for the Court; Armstrong P.J.; & Tookey, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed convictions for unlawful possession of a Schedule II controlled substance and unlawful possession of a firearm. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence discovered by deputies after a probation officer stopped her after displaying “distracting” behavior during attendance at a DUII victim-impact panel. On appeal, Defendant argued that the probation officer’s suspicion that she violated her diversion agreement is not a lawful basis for a stop. In response, the State argued that the probation officer’s authority to monitor a person on diversion implies an authority to stop her if there is a reasonable suspicion of she violated the diversion agreement. Under ORS 813.260(2), a probation officer shall monitor a person’s progress under a diversion agreement and shall report her successful completion of or failure to comply with the treatment program to the court. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred because the State failed to meet its burden to show that a probation officer’s authority to monitor and report to the court grants an implied authority to a warrantless search of a person. Reversed and remanded.