Court Opinion

ID: 9845646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:25:38.849902+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:17.022951
License: Public Domain

BUTTLER, P. J.,
specially concurring.
When the five armed officers in plain clothes pulled into defendant’s driveway in three unmarked cars, followed by Sergeant Hepp’s confronting defendant, showing his badge and stating that he was there to pick up the marijuana plants that she was growing, the confrontation was a stop within the meaning of ORS 131.615(1). Because, as the state concedes, the officers did not have a reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed a crime, the stop was unlawful.
There was a clear show of police authority that would make the person encountered feel that she was not free to refuse to cooperate or that she was free to leave the scene. State v. Spenst, 62 Or App 755, 662 P2d 5, rev den 295 Or 447 (1983). Because everything that followed Hepp’s assertion of *654authority was derivative of that illegality, the evidence must be suppressed. State v. Williamson, 307 Or 621, 772 P2d 404 (1989).
With that clarification, I agree with the majority.