Willamette Law Online

Oregon Court of Appeals


ListPreviousNext


State v. Farrar

Summarized by: 

Date Filed: 09-12-2012
Case #: A143404
Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Brewer, J.; and Sercombe, J.
Full Text Opinion: http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/Publications/A143404.pdf

Criminal Law: For reasonable suspicion, an officer must subjectively believe a person has committed a crime and that belief under the totality of the circumstances must be objectively reasonable. In addition, the officer must point to specific facts demonstrating a crime was committed or the person was about to commit a crime.

The Defendant appealed the denial of her motion to suppress evidence due to an extended traffic stop. The Defendant argued that the search was unlawful because the arresting officer did not have enough facts to objectively justify his suspicion that the Defendant held a controlled substance. The arresting officer, during trial, stated that he had reasonable suspicion because the Defendant was nervous, smoked during the stop, and showed signs of methamphetamine abuse, and therefore it was reasonable to suspect that the Defendant possessed methamphetamine. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument, stating that the officer's statements were too general and did not reasonably justify, with particularity, that there were enough facts for reasonable suspicion. The State contended that the facts reached the level of reasonable suspicion, but the Court rejected the State's argument, holding there was not enough evidence to objectively find reasonable suspicion. Reversed and remanded.