Court Opinion

ID: 9784623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 20:49:50.033282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:57.054050
License: Public Domain

DEITS, C. J.,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that the trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion to suppress. My concern with the majority’s decision is that it assumes that a stop occurred at the time of the officer’s initial contact with defendant. That assumption is misleading in the sense that it can be understood to imply that we agree with defendant and the trial court that a stop did occur at that time. I believe that we should take this opportunity to clarify the law, in particular our decision in State v. Puffenbarger, 166 Or App 426, 998 P2d 788 (2000), the case relied on by both defendant and the trial court in determining that defendant was stopped when Officer Dalberg began his pursuit.
The majority concludes that it need not resolve the issue whether a stop occurred at that point because, whether or not Dalberg’s pursuit constituted a stop, he had reasonable *197suspicion to justify a stop at the outset of the encounter. I agree that Dalberg had reasonable suspicion at the beginning of his contact with defendant. But reasonable suspicion was not necessary at that point because, under these circumstances, defendant was not stopped until the police actually detained him — at which point it is undisputed that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant.
Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, a seizure of a person occurs
“(a) if a law enforcement officer intentionally and significantly restricts, interferes with, or otherwise deprives an individual of that individual’s liberty or freedom of movement; or (b) whenever an individual believes that (a), above, has occurred and such belief is objectively reasonable in the circumstances.”
State v. Holmes, 311 Or 400, 409-10, 813 P2d 28 (1991). An encounter between the police and a citizen is a seizure only when “[an] officer engages in conduct significantly beyond that accepted in ordinary social intercourse. The pivotal factor is whether the officer, even if making inquiries a private citizen would not, has otherwise conducted himself in a manner that would be perceived as a nonoffensive contact if it had occurred between two ordinary citizens.” Id. at 410.
Citing this court’s decision in Puffenbarger, the trial court ruled that the stop occurred at the time that Dalberg began to pursue defendant. As mentioned above, the majority implicitly agrees with the trial court as to that determination. I do not agree. Under the totality of the circumstances, defendant was not stopped for purposes of Article I, section 9, until the police detained him. The trial court’s conclusion— that, under Puffenbarger, defendant was stopped when Dalberg gave chase — overstates the reach of that decision, and we should take this opportunity to clarify our ruling in that case.
In Puffenbarger, the police initially contacted the defendant while he was walking on the sidewalk and asked him for identifying information and whether he had ever been arrested. The defendant responded that he had, but only for traffic matters. Police asked for consent to search, but the defendant refused. The defendant asked *198if he was free to leave, and the police told him that he was. Puffenbarger, 166 Or App at 428.
Police ran a criminal background check of the defendant on the mobile computer in their patrol car. The computer was slow to return that information, and, while it was processing the officers’ request, the police followed the defendant from a short distance. At one point, an officer had to leave the patrol car and follow the defendant on foot in order to maintain visual contact because the car was blocked by a dead end. When the information finally came back on the computer, it indicated that the defendant had, in fact, been arrested previously on a weapon offense. Id. at 428-29.
When the information about the defendant’s weapon violation came back, the police pulled alongside the defendant and asked him about the violation, why he had not mentioned it before, and what they would find if they searched him. The officers stopped their car and one of them got out of the vehicle and approached the defendant, at which point the defendant fled. The police pursued the defendant, ordering him to stop and telling him that he was under arrest. During the pursuit, the police saw the defendant reach behind a small boat and heard a thud. The police finally arrested the defendant on his porch and later recovered a firearm where they had seen the defendant at the boat. The defendant was eventually convicted of felon in possession of a firearm. Id. at 428-30.
Before trial in Puffenbarger, the defendant moved to suppress all evidence of the firearm and statements that he had made, arguing that the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion. The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that the analysis was the same under both the Oregon and federal constitutions and concluding that the stop had not occurred until police had physically apprehended the suspect. We reversed and remanded, noting that the analysis is not identical under state and federal law because, under the Oregon Constitution, a defendant need not submit to physical force or police authority for a stop to occur. Id. at 432-33, 435 (comparing Holmes, 311 at 409-10, with California v. Hodari, 499 US 621, 626, 111 S Ct 1547, 113 L Ed 2d 690 (1991)).
*199As we explained in Puffenbarger, our holding in that case was based on the totality of the circumstances. What was critical to our decision was not the final pursuit by police, but rather the extent and nature of their show of authority preceding the pursuit. We noted that the police had followed the defendant for 12 blocks, even as he changed directions and even when the route required an officer to leave the vehicle. The officers called out questions to the defendant from their car as they drove against traffic and they eventually stopped the car, got out, and approached the defendant before he fled. That conduct went significantly beyond what would be acceptable between ordinary citizens and amounted to more than an inconvenience or annoyance to the defendant. The extensive show of police authority in that case made reasonable the defendant’s belief that he had been stopped and, thus, made the interaction a seizure. 166 Or App at 434-35.
Our decision in State v. Snow, 179 Or App 222, 39 P3d 909 (2002), also highlights the importance of a demonstration of police authority. In Snow, the police witnessed the defendant “laying rubber” while making a turn and rapidly driving away. The police made a U-turn, activated their overhead lights, and pursued the defendant. The pursuit continued through a residential neighborhood, and the police eventually found the car that the defendant had been driving unattended. When a license plate check returned information that the registered owner of the vehicle did not fit the description of the defendant, the police searched the car in order to find some evidence of the defendant’s identity. In the course of that search, the police discovered a shotgun. The defendant was ultimately arrested and charged with felon in possession of a firearm and reckless driving. Id.
In Snow, we reversed the trial court’s grant of the defendant’s motion to suppress because the search of the vehicle fit the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. Citing our reasoning in Puffenbarger, we ruled that the stop occurred when the police turned on the emergency lights and began the pursuit of the defendant. Snow, 179 Or App at 233-35 (citing Puffenbarger, 166 Or App at 435). The critical component that made that interaction a stop was the nature of the police show of authority — by activating the overhead *200lights — in conjunction with the pursuit. As any driver knows, the use of overhead lights by a police officer following the driver’s vehicle is an unequivocal command to pull the car over. That is the sort of demonstration of authority that turns an otherwise innocuous interaction between a citizen and an officer into a seizure under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. See also State v. Juarez-Godinez, 326 Or 1, 6, 942 P2d 772 (1997) (citing State v. Warner, 284 Or 147, 165-66, 585 P2d 681 (1978)) (stop may result from "mere show of authority”).
In this case, defendant’s first response to Dalberg’s initial — and very limited — contact was to flee. Dalberg, suspecting defendant of violating a drug-fee zone exclusion, followed on foot. Significantly, there is no evidence that, before or in the course of that pursuit, Dalberg ordered defendant to stop or otherwise asserted his authority in any manner that would reasonably lead defendant to believe that he was required to submit to that authority. Dalberg simply followed defendant. I do not understand how that amounts to an intentional and significant deprivation of, or interference with, defendant’s liberty. Nor do I understand a simple foot pursuit to be so significantly out of the realm of ordinary social intercourse that it would be an offensive contact if it occurred between two citizens, as would be required under the second prong of the Holmes test. If the facts of this case constitute a stop, then any time a uniformed officer follows a citizen who is attempting to avoid mere conversational contact with the police, a stop has occurred. That cannot be correct. That is simply not a sufficient show of authority or interference with a citizen’s liberty to constitute a stop under Article I, section 9. The trial court erred in ruling that the officer’s greeting and subsequent pursuit, without more, constituted a stop. Defendant, in this case, was not subject to a stop until police detained him, at which time they clearly had reasonable suspicion to justify the stop.
For the reasons stated above, I concur.