Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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. Najar

Court of Appeals of Oregon

July 26, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CLAUDIO CASTILLO NAJAR, aka Claudio Najar-Castillo, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted September 29, 2015

         Marion County Circuit Court 12C41943; A156660 Susan M. Tripp, Judge.

          Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Lindsey K. Detweiler, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the brief for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and Michael S. Shin, Assistant Attorney General, fled the brief for respondent.

          Before DeVore, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Flynn, Judge pro tempore.

         Case Summary: Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for one count of unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894. Defendant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered after defendant consented to the inspection of a container following a pat down search. The trial court concluded that defendant was seized at the time of the search and that officer safety concerns authorized the seizure, rejecting defendant's argument that he was seized much earlier during the encounter. Defendant argues that he was seized when the officer asked to see defendant's identification and then told defendant to reach for his wallet with only one hand, that the seizure was not authorized by the officer safety doctrine, and that subsequent evidence must be suppressed. The state argues that defendant was not seized at the earlier point defendant identifies and that, even if he was, the trial court should be affirmed on either of two bases that the trial court did not address-that officer safety concerns justified the earlier seizure or defendant's consent to the search was sufficiently attenuated from any police illegality. Held: Defendant was seized when the officer directed him to use his hands in a specific way to retrieve his [287 Or.App. 99] identification, and the record did not permit an affirmance on either of the alternative bases identified by the state.

          [287 Or.App. 100]

          FLYNN, J. pro tempore

         Defendant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence that officers discovered after defendant consented to the inspection of a container that officers found during a "pat down" search. The trial court concluded that defendant was seized at the time of the search and that the seizure was authorized by officer safety concerns, rejecting defendant's argument that he was seized much earlier during the encounter and that the state failed to prove any lawful basis for the earlier seizure. Defendant argues that he was seized when, during the course of a conversation between the officer and defendant, who was sitting in a parked car, the officer asked to see defendant's license and then told defendant to reach for his wallet with only one hand. We have repeatedly held that similar directions to a citizen amounted to a seizure, and we conclude that defendant was, likewise, seized when the officer directed how defendant should move his hands to reach for his wallet. The state urges us to affirm the trial court on the alternative bases that the earlier seizure was also authorized by officer safety concerns or that defendant's ultimate consent was sufficiently attenuated from any illegality that the evidence should not be suppressed. However, neither argument was raised or addressed below, and the criteria for affirming a trial court on an alternative basis are not satisfied. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

         We review the denial of defendant's motion to suppress for legal error and, in doing so, "we are bound by the trial court's factual findings if there is any constitutionally sufficient evidence in the record to support them." State v. Maciel-Fisueroa. 361 Or. 163, 165-66, 389 P.3d 1121 (2017). To the extent that the trial court did not make express findings regarding disputed facts, we will presume that the court found the facts in a manner consistent with its ultimate conclusion, provided that the evidence would support such findings. Id. at 166. We describe the facts in a manner consistent with that standard of review.

          [287 Or.App. 101] I. BACKGROUND

         A. Historical Facts

         Sheriff's deputies Hagan and Remmy were driving in a marked patrol car through an area with "a lot of stolen vehicles and cars that are broken into" when they noticed a car parked on the side of the road with the passenger door ajar. Hagan "thought it was a little unusual" because he had "found cars in that state before and they've been broken into." At the time, the sun was still rising and it was a "little bit foggy, " so Hagan "couldn't quite see into it to know one way or the other if anybody was inside."

         The deputies turned around, parked in front of the car, but on the opposite side of the street, and approached the car from both sides. Using flashlights to look inside the car, they saw two people-defendant in the driver's seat, with the keys in the ignition, and a woman in the passenger seat. Hagan knocked on the driver's side window, and defendant rolled it down. Hagan asked ...


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.