Opinion ID: 1365667
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The officers were justified in taking defendant into custody for the purpose of establishing his identity.

Text: Defendant committed a traffic violation in the officers' presence, and was therefore subject to at least the issuance of a citation. That citation could not be completed without knowing defendant's identity. ORS 484.150(3)(b). [10] When the officers were given conflicting information as to defendant's identity, they were justified in taking additional steps in order to make sure that a traffic violation charge would be made against the proper person. Citation for a minor traffic offense requires the offender to either appear in court or remit, prior to the date for court appearance, the amount of bail appropriate to the offense. ORS 484.190(2). The officer has no authority to accept bail in the form of cash although, under limited circumstances, he may accept security in the form of a qualifying automobile association membership card or a guaranteed arrest bond certificate. ORS 484.120(1), (2). In normal circumstances, security must be submitted to a magistrate or designated clerk. ORS 484.120(4). It follows that in order to insure that a traffic offender will perform his obligation to either appear in court or post bail the officer must have authority to make certain of an offender's identity before citing and releasing him. It also follows, in our opinion, that when, as under the circumstances of this case, the information available at the scene of the stop shows uncertainty as to defendant's true identity, an officer acts reasonably if he requires the defendant to go to the police station while steps are taken to determine his identity. The limits of our holding on this point should be made clear. ORS 484.100(1) authorizes a police officer to arrest a person for a minor traffic offense. [11] In the context of a traffic stop, ORS 484.435 contemplates the possibility of a full custody arrest, but does not say when such an arrest may be made. [12] We are not required in this case to consider the limits of a police officer's authority to make an arrest for a minor traffic offense. Cf. Brown v. Multnomah County Dist. Ct., 280 Or. 95, 108, 570 P.2d 52 (1977), and id. 280 Or. at 114, 570 P.2d 52 (Holman, J., dissenting). We need not and we do not hold that the defendant in this case could have been arrested as that term is understood in common usage  that he could have been held in jail, unless he posted bail, to answer to a charge of running a stop sign. We consider here only the reasonableness of a temporary detention, for a limited purpose, under the particular facts of this case. This defendant was detained at the police station for a period of about two hours while his identity was under investigation. During that period, which is not an inherently unreasonable length of time, [13] the police learned that the television set and bicycles had been stolen only that morning. Those items were then, of course, properly subject to seizure. For all of these reasons, we hold that the original traffic stop was reasonable; that defendant's rights were not violated by questioning him about his identity during that stop; that when the police officers were given conflicting information about defendant's identity they acted reasonably in detaining him until his identity could be established; and that they received information justifying the seizure of the stolen items while that investigation was being conducted. The trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence against defendant. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.