Willamette Law Online

Oregon Court of Appeals


ListPreviousNext


State v. Canfield

Summarized by: 

Date Filed: 08-01-2012
Case #: A143570
Wollheim, J. for the Court; Schuman, P.J.; and Nakamoto, J.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/A143570.pdf

Criminal Law: A seizure occurs when “the officer has manifested a show of authority restricting an individual's freedom of movement.” When an individual’s freedom of movement is no longer interfered with, the stop has ended.

Defendant appealed his conviction arguing the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. An officer approached two defendants and asked them for identification. Defendant admitted to having a pipe and consented to a search of his person. While the Defendant was in the search position, the officer told him that he was not under arrest and that he was free to go, and the Defendant said that he understood. During the search, the officer found a pipe with burnt residue that smelled like marijuana. The driver then consented to the search of the car, where the officer found marijuana that the Defendant planned to sell to the driver; the officer subsequently arrested Defendant. On appeal, Defendant argued that the search resulted from an illegal stop. In deciding if a seizure occurred, the Court looks to the totality of circumstances to determine if “the officer has manifested a show of authority restricting an individual's freedom of movement.” The Court decided that the officer showed authority by requesting for the Defendant’s identification, but once the officer told the Defendant that he was free to go, the stop had ended. After this point, a reasonable person would have understood that the officer was no longer interfering with his liberty and freedom of movement. Affirmed.