Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Dierks

Court of Appeals of Oregon

July 30, 2014

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
STACY LYNN DIERKS, Defendant-Appellant

Submitted on Remand April 18, 2014

Page 349

Multnomah County Circuit Court 110545450. On remand from the Oregon Supreme Court, State v. Dierks, 354 Or. 837, 325 P.3d 738 (2014) . Alicia A. Fuchs, Judge.

Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Morgen E. Daniels, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for appellant.

Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and David B. Thompson, Senior Assistant Attorney General, filed the briefs for respondent.

Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Sercombe, Judge, and Hadlock, Judge.


Page 350

[264 Or.App. 445] HADLOCK, J.

In our original opinion in this case, we reversed a judgment that found defendant in contempt for having violated the terms of a no-contact order issued by a Washington court. State v. Dierks, 257 Or.App. 88, 90, 306 P.3d 653 (2013) ( Dierks I ), vac'd and rem'd, 354 Or. 837, 325 P.3d 738 (2014) ( Dierks II ). We did so after concluding that a police officer had " stopped" defendant without reasonable suspicion, in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, and that the trial court erred when it denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence that the officer discovered as a result of that stop. Dierks I, 257 Or.App. at 97-98. The Supreme Court subsequently vacated that opinion and remanded the case to us for reconsideration in light of its decisions in State v. Backstrand, 354 Or. 392, 313 P.3d 1084 (2013), and other cases. Dierks II, 354 Or. 837, 325 P.3d 738. We now conclude that the pertinent actions of the officer did not amount to a stop and, therefore, the trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion to suppress. Accordingly, we affirm.[1]

We recount the historical and procedural facts as described in Dierks I:

" On the day in question, Gresham Police Officer Barrett was on patrol in the Rockwood neighborhood, which he described as 'a high-crime, high-drug, high-gang area.' Barrett spotted a single car parked in a small parking lot where, in the past, he had encountered people who were engaged in drug deals. Barrett, who was in uniform, pulled his marked patrol car into the parking lot; as he arrived, he saw the two occupants of the other car 'look up at [him] and realize [he] was there.' Barrett parked without blocking the other car and without turning on his emergency lights. He then approached the parked car and spoke with defendant, who appeared to be the driver, and defendant's passenger, explaining that they were in 'a very high-drug, high-crime area.' Barrett asked defendant and the passenger whether they had seen anything suspicious; he also asked what they were doing. Defendant and the passenger told Barrett that they were waiting for a friend.
[264 Or.App. 446] " Barrett then asked defendant and the passenger for their names. Defendant said that her name was Stacy Lynn Burke and that she was licensed to drive in Washington, but did not have the license with her. The passenger responded to Barrett's inquiry by identifying himself and providing Barrett with his driver's license. Barrett returned to his car and ran the name Stacy Lynn Burke through the Law Enforcement Data System (LEDS) in both Oregon and Washington, but nothing came up in either state. When Barrett ran the passenger's name, he testified, he discovered that the passenger 'had a valid restraining order against someone by the name of Stacy Lynn Dierks, * * * which was very similar to Stacy Lynn Burke * * *.' At that point, Barrett thought that defendant had lied to him about her identity.
" Because Barrett thought that defendant might be the Stacy Lynn Dierks against whom the no-contact order had issued, he asked if she had any photo identification with her. As defendant looked through her purse, Barrett saw her twice pass by a paper copy of a Washington driver's license. Barrett pointed that out to defendant, who then handed him the document, which reflected her true identity.
" After she was charged with contempt for having violated the no-contact order, defendant moved to suppress the evidence of her identity that Barrett had obtained during the parking-lot encounter, arguing that Barrett had seized her by asking for her name and performing a warrants check.1 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.