- Court: Oregon Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 09-14-2017
- Case #: S064469
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Kistler, J. for the Court; Balmer, C.J.; Duncan, J.; Flynn, J.; Landau, J.; Nakamoto, J.; & Walters, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Youth appealed a judgment for possession of methamphetamine. Youth assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, and the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of the judgment on the grounds that no stop occurred. Youth argued that a reasonable person in his situation would not have felt free to leave, and thus, the police questioning was a stop. Requesting identification does not sufficient as a stop on its own. However, an encounter can rise to the level of a stop if under the totality of the circumstances, the types of questions, manner of which they are asked, or other police action would make a reasonable person believe the police are “exercising their authority to coercively detain” them. State v. Backstrand, 354 Or 382, 412, 313 P3d 1084 (2013). The Oregon Supreme Court ultimately concluded the interaction was a stop because was reasonable for the youth and his friend to believe that they could not leave without finishing the detective’s questioning. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the circuit court is reversed, and the case is remanded to the circuit court.