Court Opinion

ID: 9538305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:34:36.191508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:43.981059
License: Public Domain

THORNTON, J.,
dissenting.
For reasons which follow, I conclude that the majority is in error in holding that there was no reasonable suspicion for the officer to make a limited inquiry of defendant and the driver concerning the possession of liquor or contraband in the car.
First, the weaving movement of defendant’s auto, the crossing of the fog line and the making of two improper lane changes was an indication that the operator might be driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The officer testified to his reasonable suspicion that the driver of the vehicle may have been drinking or was under the influence of drugs.
Second, after the officer turned on his overhead flashing lights, the action of the passenger, who turned out to be this defendant, in leaning forward and appearing to place or remove some object from under the seat— an important fact which was omitted from the statement of facts in the majority opinion— was a strong indication that defendant was attempting to hide some object, such as contraband or a weapon, from the approaching police officer.1
Third, the fact that the driver, defendant’s brother, immediately dismounted from the auto and met the officer in front of the patrol car was a further basis for suspecting a violation of the open container *737law or concealment of contraband because, as the officer testified, the driver might have been attempting to prevent the officer from observing something in the car. From all the above facts the officer was justified in asking the defendant and the driver if they had any liquor or marijuana in their auto. Although this is a close case, I believe that the objective facts set forth above tended to corroborate the officer’s earlier conjecture that the occupants of the auto might be transporting liquor or drugs.
ORS 131.615 provides:
"(1) A peace officer who reasonably suspects that a person has committed a crime may stop the person and, after informing the person that he is a peace officer, make a reasonable inquiry.
"(2) The detention and inquiry shall be conducted in the vicinity of the stop and for no longer than a reasonable time.
"(3) The inquiry shall be considered reasonable only if limited to the immediate circumstances that aroused the officer’s suspicion.”
I conclude from these facts that this officer, while conducting a general on-the-scene investigation, had a right to make a limited inquiry whether the occupants had any alcohol or drugs in the vehicle. ORS 131.615; State v. Tucker, 286 Or 485, 595 P2d 1364 (1979). Cf. State v. Carter/Dawson, 287 Or 679, 600 P2d 873 (1979).
For the above reasons, I respectfully dissent.
Richardson, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

 This movement has been termed in police parlance as the "forward lean.” Some courts have held this to be a "furtive gesture” or conduct which reasonably led the officer to believe that the suspect was trying to hide evidence under the seat or on the floor and afforded, in combination with other factors, a reasonable basis for stopping and searching the car. See cases collected in Annotation, Search and Seizure— Furtive Gesture, 45 ALR3d 581 (1972).