Court Opinion

ID: 9622021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:11:09.936484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:14.244945
License: Public Domain

ROSSMAN, J.,
dissenting.
The majority ignores the central question of this case and, in so doing, unnecessarily creates law that will be detrimental to the safety of every police officer who executes a search warrant. Accordingly, I dissent.
The defendant in this case drove up on a motorcycle, dismounted and walked toward an individual named Losey, who was surrounded by approximately five police officers. The officers, wearingjackets marked “RAID,” were obviously engaged in a criminal investigation. Defendant ignored them and continued to approach. Officer Wood, in an attempt to block defendant from making contact with Losey, intercepted him and asked for identification. Defendant replied that he had none. The trial court found that defendant was then “requested to empty his pockets.” He complied.
*636To hold that that scenario constituted a search is ludicrous. Defendant intruded in a situation that was volatile and needed to be completely controlled by the officers. As the Supreme Court said in Michigan v. Summers, 452 US 692, 702-03, 101 S Ct 2587, 69 L Ed 2d 340 (1981), when a warrant to search for narcotics is being executed, the “risk of harm to both the police and the occupants is minimized if the officers routinely exercise unquestioned command of the situation.” The officers did not know who defendant was or what he was doing. He could have been planning to pass a weapon to Losey, to open fire on the officers or to attempt a delivery of narcotics. Wood simply asked defendant to show identification and to empty his pockets. Defendant voluntarily emptied his pockets. That was not a “search” incident to an arrest for failure to present or carry a driver’s license. It was simply the least intrusive means of ensuring the safety of those assembled.
Defendant could see what was taking place. He intentionally injected himself into the middle of police activity and now seeks to rely on the argument that, in being kept from contacting Losey, his “liberty” was restrained, because he was “required to alter his course of conduct.” That is utter nonsense. The officers had every right to keep defendant from reaching Losey. They were not on the offensive, seeking out and stopping defendant without a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a crime. They were acting defensively to secure the situation and to protect those present.1 That was accomplished in a low-key manner that involved no violation of defendant’s rights.
After finding that defendant had been “requested” to empty his pockets, the trial court determined that “defendant emptied his pockets in response to [the officer’s] commands * * * and under the law that would be the equivalent of a search by the police as the defendant could reasonably assume that if he did not do so voluntarily that he would be *637searched by the police.” (Emphasis supplied.) That statement is a legal conclusion, not a “finding.” It was erroneous, and we are not bound by it. I can find, and the majority cites, no facts that support the conclusion that “a reasonable person in defendant’s position would believe that he was required to empty his pockets * * 107 Or App at 634. (Emphasis supplied.) To the contrary, defendant exercised his free will in approaching the officers and then in choosing not to walk away from a scene where he was not allowed. He was not expressly or impliedly compelled, induced or threatened in order to make him comply with the officer’s request. There is simply no basis to believe that a reasonable person in defendant’s position would assume that he would be searched if he failed to empty his pockets.2 Even if the majority feels compelled to characterize this situation as a “search,” given the way the law in this area has developed, it creates a strange situation in which an officer with a legitimate concern for personal safety would be legally authorized to pat down an individual physically, yet could not lawfully ask that individual to empty his pockets of his own accord.
Given that we are dealing with an area of the law in which “reasonableness” is the hallmark, it seems to me that common sense should play a greater role in resolving the issue presented by this case. I would hold that there was no stop and no search and that defendant voluntarily consented to revealing the contents of his pockets during his brief conversation with Wood.

 Although the state does not present this argument, it appears to me that defendant’s interference violated, or was an attempt to violate, ORS 162.235(1), which provides, in part:
“A person commits the crime of obstructing governmental or judicial administration if the person intentionally obstructs, impairs or hinders the administration of law or other governmental or judicial function by means of * * * physical * * * interference * *

 The fact of the matter is that no reasonable person would have carried methamphetamine into a group of officers who were executing a narcotics search warrant.