Court Opinion

ID: 9550274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:33:22.873636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:19.407230
License: Public Domain

*429NEWMAN, J.,
dissenting.
The majority recognizes that until defendant admitted that his license was revoked, Walker did not have “the necessary reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed to justify a stop.” 91 Or App at 428. It first asserts, however, that Walker’s actions, up to and including the request for identification, were not a sufficient show of authority to constitute a stop. It then suggests that, in any event, Walker did not stop defendant before he admitted the revocation. Even if the majority were correct on its first point, which it is not, it is wrong on its second. We should affirm the trial court.
We all agree that Walker lacked any reasonable suspicion until defendant had admitted that his license was revoked. However, because of what preceded it, the initial inquiry and request for identification was a sufficient show of authority to lead a reasonable person to believe that he was not free to leave. See State v. Painter, 296 Or 422, 676 P2d 309 (1984). Defendant was trying to avoid the officer, who had followed his car into the parking lot of an apartment complex. Before the officer arrived, defendant had stopped his car, crouched down outside it on the passenger side and then sat in the passenger seat. The officer decided to investigate. His written report read:
“I contacted him and obtained an Oregon ID card. He said that he was waiting for a friend. I asked him why he was driving the car and he denied driving. He claimed that [the friend] was driving. I told him that I saw him driving the vehicle and that nobody else was in it. He maintained that I was wrong and that he wasn’t driving. [Defendant] said he knew he was revoked. A records check confirmed that [defendant] was revoked for habitual offender as of 4-9-86.”
The majority apparently sees the initial encounter as mere conversation in which defendant voluntarily participated. The trial court more aptly described it:
“So it’s sort of a — I guess a direct approach by the officer rather than something that could be considered the least bit casual and I think it definitely focused on this defendant and knows that the defendant doesn’t want to talk to him. * * * He’s got suspicions that this defendant is involved in something, and the first thing he said is, ‘What are you doing? Why are you here?’ It’s not like, ‘Do you live around here,’ or ‘Could *430I see some identification,’ or whatever. It’s ‘What are you doing here?’ * * * and I think you’d have to conclude it was clear to the defendant he wasn’t free to leave.”
The trial court properly considered all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, including the preceding events and the character of the inquiry. In State v. Penney, 87 Or App 357, 742 P2d 660 (1987), we also focused on the defendant’s attempt to avoid the police and rejected the state’s argument that the encounter was “mere conversation”:
“Defendant had already demonstrated that he had no desire to engage the police in conversation when he changed directions on first sighting [the officer’s] patrol car and attempted to elude the police. The officer responded by pursuing him through the mall. Given the officer’s initial response, it is clear that defendant had no reason to assume that he was free to leave after the officer caught up with him. ” 87 Or App at 360. (Emphasis supplied.)
I agree with the trial court that defendant could reasonably believe that he was not free to leave after Walker followed him into the parking lot, made the initial contact and requested identification.
Even if the majority is correct that the initial contact and request for identification did not constitute a stop, it is wrong when it concludes that Walker had not stopped defendant before he admitted the revocation. The majority concedes that Walker could have formed a reasonable suspicion to justify a stop only after defendant had said that. 91 Or App at 428. It then attempts to distinguish between Walker’s retention of defendant’s identification and his retention of that identification for record check purposes. It states:
“It was immediately after Walker’s request for identification, and before he retained it for record check purposes, that defendant admitted that his license had been revoked. It was at that point, as the trial court found, that Walker had the necessary reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed to justify a stop and probable cause to arrest defendant.” 91 Or App at 428. (Emphasis in original.)
First, the facts show that defendant did not admit that his license was revoked immediately after Walker’s request for identification. As the majority opinion recognizes, 91 Or App at 427, Walker made contact with defendant and *431requested and obtained his identification card. He then proceeded to question defendant. He asked defendant what he was doing; defendant said he was waiting for a friend. He asked him why he was driving; defendant denied driving. He insisted that he had observed defendant driving; defendant insisted that he had not been driving. Only after those exchanges, during which Walker continued to retain defendant’s identification, did defendant admit that his license was revoked.
Second, the majority suggests that it is the retention of the license or identification card for investigatory purposes that restrains a person from leaving. It is true that the police in State v. Painter, supra, retained the defendant’s expired Virginia license and credit cards and then ran a radio check, but that opinion in no way turns on the purpose of the retention. Rather, that opinion emphasizes that the officer continued to hold the defendant’s license and credit cards and that, accordingly, the defendant was unable to leave. Likewise, it is not important here that Walker had not run a record check by the time that defendant admitted the revocation. He had continued to retain defendant’s identification. Regardless of the purpose for which he retained it, defendant could reasonably believe that he was not free to leave.
The trial court did not err when it granted defendant’s motion to suppress.