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. Gaylor

Court of Appeals of Oregon

August 30, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JUSTIN MICHAEL GAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted June 29, 2017.

         Polk County Circuit Court 15CR02951 Sally L. Avera, Judge.

          Vanessa A. Areli, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Offce of Public Defense Services.

          Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Keith L. Kutler, Assistant Attorney General.

          Before Garrett, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Judge, and Edmonds, Senior Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894, reserving the right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence that he possessed the drug. The trial court ruled that the officer safety exception to the warrant requirement was met when the passenger in defendant's car fed on foot during the encounter. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred when it determined that the warrantless handcuffing and search of defendant that led to the discovery of the methamphetamine were justified under the officer safety exception to the warrant requirement of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and that, as a result, defendant was not entitled to suppression of the evidence.

         Held:

         A warrantless search or seizure of a person based on officer safety concerns requires an objectively reasonable belief that that person poses an immediate threat of harm at the time of the pertinent warrantless search or seizure, and uncertainty about the location of the person's associate, without [287 Or.App. 496] more, does not make it objectively reasonable for an officer to believe that the person poses a threat of immediate physical harm to the officer.

         Reversed and remanded.

          unlawful

or seizure, and uncertainty about the location of the person's associate, without

         [287 Or.App. 497] LAGESEN, J.

         Defendant conditionally pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894, reserving the right to appeal the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress the evidence that he possessed the drug. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred when it determined that the warrantless handcuffing and search of defendant that led to the discovery of the methamphetamine were justified under the "officer safety" exception to the warrant requirement of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and that, as a result, defendant was not entitled to suppression of the evidence. We review to determine whether the trial court's factual findings are supported by any evidence in the record, and whether the trial court correctly applied applicable principles of law, State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66, 75, 854 P.2d 421 (1993), and reverse and remand.

         The pertinent facts generally are not in dispute. Sergeant Jenkins was on afternoon patrol in west Salem when he observed a car parked in the driveway of a house that Jenkins knew was abandoned. Defendant and Glazebrook were in the car. Finding that suspicious, in part because of a burglary in the area 10 days earlier, Jenkins decided to investigate and "just see what was going on." Jenkins pulled into the next driveway up the road and parked, letting dispatch know that he was "going to be out on a suspicious vehicle." As he did that, he noticed in his side mirror that defendant and Glazebrook had gotten out of the car, and that defendant was walking along the road toward Jenkins's car. Jenkins turned his car around and drove back to where the car was parked in the abandoned house's driveway, and stopped his car in the road ...


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.