Court Opinion

ID: 9631628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:45:11.303573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:37.773895
License: Public Domain

UNIS, J.,
concurring.
I join the opinion but write separately concerning defendant’s contention that the police officer did not have statutory authority to be present at the scene of the traffic accident and, therefore, that the officer did not lawfully encounter defendant.
The court correctly demonstrates that police officers are authorized by the Oregon legislature, a politically *563accountable lawmaker,1 to investigate traffic accidents. The court rejects, therefore, defendant’s argument that the officer did not lawfully encounter defendant at the scene of the accident. I agree.2 I believe, however, that there is an additional reason why the encounter was lawful. In my view, police officers do not need authorization from a politically accountable lawmaker to stop at the scene of a motor vehicle accident on a public highway or in a public place. Nor, in my view, do police officers need authorization from a politically accountable lawmaker to merely ask a question {e.g., to ask “what happened?”) of aperson present at the scene of such a traffic accident, without being called on to articulate a certain level of suspicion in justification for such conduct. Such a *564scenario illustrates “a police-citizen encounter without any restraint of liberty (e.g., mere conversation, a non-coercive encounter)” and does not implicate Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. State v. Holmes, 311 Or 400, 407, 813 P2d 28 (1991) (citing State v. Warner, 284 Or 147, 161, 585 P2d 681 (1978)).

“The phrase ‘politically accountable lawmaker’ is taken from Nelson v. Lane County, [304 Or 97, 105, 743 P2d 692 (1987)], where this court stated: ‘Authority for administrative searches may be, and often is, provided by politically accountable lawmakers.’ See also State v. Atkinson, 298 Or 1, 6, 688 P2d 832 (1984) (phrase ‘politically accountable officials’ used).
“Potential sources of proper authorization by politically accountable lawmakers would include, for example, a statute enacted by the Oregon Legislature or by the electorate through the initiative or referendum process, a regulation based on a statute, a city or county charter provision, a city or county ordinance, or a policy or procedure promulgated pursuant to authority.”
State v. Holmes, 311 Or 400, 404 n 4, 813 P2d 28 (1991).

 This case arose before the Legislative Assembly enacted into law ORS 133.033 and is considered apart from that statute. ORS 133.033 provides:
“(1) Except as otherwise expressly prohibited by law, any peace officer of this state, as defined in ORS 133.005, is authorized to perform community caretaking functions.
“(2) As used in this section, ‘community caretaking functions’ means any lawful acts that are inherent in the duty of the peace officer to serve and protect the public. ‘Community caretaking functions’ includes, but is not limited to:
“(a) The right to enter or remain upon the premises of another if it reasonably appears to be necessary to:
“(A) Prevent serious harm to any person or property;
“(B) Render aid to injured or ill persons; or
“(C) Locate missing persons.
“(b) The right to stop or redirect traffic or aid motorists or other persons when such action reasonably appears to be necessary to:
“(A) Prevent serious harm to any person or property;
“(B) Render aid to injured or ill persons; or
“(C) Locate missing persons.
“(3) Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to limit the authority of a peace officer that is inherent in the office or that is granted by any other provision of law.”