Court Opinion

ID: 9563611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:43:19.369008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:58.135993
License: Public Domain

LANDAU, J.,
concurring.
Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that Tribal Officer Pritchard could not lawfully stop him because ORS 810.410 does not confer such authority on tribal officers. The majority declines to address that state statutory argument and instead disposes of the appeal on federal constitutional grounds not argued by defendant or the state. That method of analysis is contrary to well-settled principles that require a “first things first” approach: first statutory arguments, then constitutional ones, State v. Moylett, 313 Or 540, 545, 836 P2d 1329 (1992) (“All issues should first be addressed on a subconstitutional level.”); first state law arguments, then federal ones, State v. Kennedy, 295 Or 260, 264, 666 P2d 1316 (1983) (“[A] practice of deciding federal claims without attention to possibly decisive state issues can create an untenable position for this state’s system of discretionary Supreme Court review.”). It is also contrary to our practice of addressing only arguments raised by the parties unless the proper construction of relevant statutes requires us to do otherwise. Stull v. Hoke, 326 Or 72, 77, 948 P2d 722 (1997).
The majority’s disposition of this case is especially surprising because defendant’s argument may be so easily disposed of. Defendant contends that Pritchard lacked *160authority to effect a traffic stop. According to defendant, under ORS 810.410, only “police officers” have authority to effect a traffic stop, and, under the definition provided in ORS 801.395, that term “includes a member of the Oregon State Police, a sheriff, a deputy sheriff or a city police officer.” Defendant reasons that, because tribal officers are not mentioned in the definition, they are not to be regarded as “police officers” who are authorized to conduct traffic stops. Defendant’s reasoning is flawed for a simple reason. The statutory definition of “police officer” states a nonexclusive list of what is included within the meaning of the term. ORS 801.395. It does not state the exclusive limits of the term. Defendant’s argument thus is predicated on a failure to recognize the difference between statutory definitions that express what terms “mean” and what terms merely “include.” See, e.g., Pilgrim v. Clatskanie People’s Utility Dist., 149 Or App 234, 238-39, 942 P2d 821, rev den 326 Or 389 (1997); State v. Haynes, 149 Or App 73, 76-77, 942 P2d 295 (1997).
The majority professes reluctance to address the solitary statutory argument that the parties contest because doing so might have constitutional implications, albeit ones not raised by any party. I must confess that I cannot follow the logic of skipping our usual practice of deciding nonconstitutional issues first merely because failing to do so might trigger constitutional issues that were not raised by the parties. It strikes me that the better course is to address the statutory arguments raised by the parties and address any constitutional implications in a case in which parties bring such matters properly before us.
In my view, the majority’s decision to resort to federal constitutional principles is unnecessary and inappropriate. I therefore respectfully concur with the result of the majority’s decision, but not with its reasoning.