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. Decker

Court of Appeals of Oregon

February 22, 2018

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
THOMAS PAUL DECKER, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted September 6, 2016.

         Klamath County Circuit Court 1301867CR Roxanne B. Osborne, Judge

          Sara F. Werboff, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Lindsey Burrows, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services.

          Jacob R. Brown, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor General, and Jona J. Maukonen, Assistant Attorney General.

          Before DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.[*]

         [290 Or.App. 322] Case Summary:

         Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894, and felon in possession of a restricted weapon, ORS 166.270(2). He assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence found after law enforcement stopped the vehicle that defendant was driving for a traffic violation. On appeal, he argues that the evidence should have been suppressed because an officer found it after another officer unlawfully extended the traffic stop on suspicion that defendant was engaged in unspecified criminal activity.

         Held:

         The trial court erred. A stop's extension requires reasonable suspicion of "a specific crime or type of crime, " State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or. 163, 182, 389 P.3d 1121 (2017). Here, the record does not support a finding that the officer reasonably suspected defendant of either of the specific crimes that the state contends were the basis for the extension of the stop. Accordingly, the trial court erred when it denied the motion to suppress. Further, that error was not harmless.

         Reversed and remanded.

         [290 Or.App. 323] HADLOCK, J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894, and felon in possession of a restricted weapon, ORS 166.270(2). Defendant was convicted of those crimes in a stipulated-facts trial after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence that law enforcement officers found after stopping the vehicle that defendant was driving for a traffic violation. On appeal, defendant contends that the evidence should have been suppressed because officers found it after one officer, Oregon State Police Sergeant Barden, unlawfully extended the traffic stop. The state argues that Barden was justified in extending the stop because he had reasonable suspicion that defendant unlawfully possessed drugs or a weapon. We conclude that the record does not support a finding that Barden reasonably suspected defendant either of unlawfully possessing controlled substances or of unlawfully possessing a weapon. The trial court therefore erred when it denied defendant's suppression motion. Because that error was not harmless, we reverse and remand.

         In the course of denying defendant's suppression motion, the trial court made factual findings that neither party challenges. We state the facts consistently with those express findings, which the record supports. State v. Shaff, 343 Or. 639, 641, 175 P.3d 454 (2007). In addition, we presume that the trial court implicitly resolved any other disputed factual matters "consistently with its ultimate conclusion" to the extent that resolving those factual disputes was necessary to the court's conclusion and to the extent that the record supports the implicit findings. Pereida-Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or. 654, 671, 342 P.3d 70 (2015).

         The events that culminated in defendant's arrest began when Barden conducted a traffic stop after he saw a moving vehicle "almost straddling the center line." Barden activated his overhead lights and followed the vehicle, which slowed down to 10 or 15 miles an hour but did not immediately stop. Rather, Barden could see a silhouette of the driver's head moving to the right, toward the center of the vehicle, more than once. The vehicle kept going for 29 seconds at a very low speed before it stopped; Barden characterized [290 Or.App. 324] that as an "extremely slow pull over" on a road on which there was no other traffic, although there was no place for the vehicle to pull completely off the road. Barden became increasingly nervous that "something's going to happen, " like an attempt by the driver to flee or "a weapon *** com[ing] into play." Barden explained at the ...


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.