Case ID: or-app_188/html/0659-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted April 30,
    affirmed July 16, 2003
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RICKY DOUGLAS SPECHT, Appellant.
    
    00CR1403; A112627
    72 P3d 682
    Shawn Wiley, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was David E. Groom, Acting Executive Director, Office of Public Defense Services.
    Janet A. Klapstein, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.
    Before Haselton, Presiding Judge, and Linder and Wollheim, Judges.
    PER CURIAM
   PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals his conviction for failure to report as a sex offender, ORS 162.155, and assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, defendant’s sole contention is that he was stopped without reasonable suspicion when a police officer informed defendant that he could arrest defendant for criminal trespass but would only give defendant a warning and then asked for defendant’s identification, which led to defendant’s arrest. However, our review of the record indicates that defendant did not raise that contention below. Before the trial court, defendant contended that the police officer stopped him by parking the police car behind defendant in a manner that impeded him from leaving and by retaining his identification. Defendant did not contend that the police officer stopped him by telling him that he could be arrested for trespass but would only give him a warning. Defendant did not preserve the contention that he makes on appeal. See State v. Hall, 166 Or App 348, 356, 999 P2d 509 (2000) (“defendant’s motion to suppress must reasonably apprise the court and the state of the arguments and authorities relied upon”); see generally State v. Wyatt, 331 Or 335, 15 P3d 22 (2000) (courts are obligated to consider preservation sua sponte and may not resolve issues that are not preserved).

Affirmed.