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. Bradford

Court of Appeals of Oregon

March 21, 2018

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
DAVID LEE BRADFORD, JR., aka David Lee Bradford, Defendant-Appellant.

          Argued and submitted August 30, 2017

          Multnomah County Circuit Court 15CR25087 Karin Johana Immergut, Judge.

          Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.

          Jacob Brown, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Adam Holbrook, Assistant Attorney General.

          Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Tookey, Judge, and Shorr, Judge.

         Case Summary:

         Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of possession of a loaded firearm in a public place, PCC 14A.60.010. He assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence found by a police officer who stopped and searched defendant without a warrant.

         Held:

         The trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion to suppress. First, the officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed a type of crime involving illegal possession of a firearm and was entitled to stop defendant to investigate that suspicion. Second, reasonable officer-safety concerns justified the officer's decision to frisk defendant and then temporarily handcuff and detain defendant in the back of a police car while the officer determined whether there was an unsecured firearm in the immediate vicinity even after the frisk revealed that defendant was not armed.

         Affirmed.

         [290 Or.App. 890] SHORR, J.

         Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of a loaded firearm in a public place, Portland City Code (PCC) 14A.60.010.[1] On appeal, defendant assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence found by a police officer after he stopped and searched defendant without a warrant. Defendant contends that the trial court erred when it concluded that the officer had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant and that the search was justified under the officer-safety exception to the Article I, section 9, warrant requirement of the Oregon Constitution. We conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had an objectively reasonable suspicion that defendant had discarded a firearm in the immediate vicinity to sufficiently support an investigatory stop. Further, we conclude that officer-safety concerns justified seizing defendant, patting him down, and handcuffing and securing him in the back of a police car while the officer searched the area where the officer believed that defendant had recently discarded a firearm. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion to suppress.

         I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         We begin with the factual standard of review applicable on appeal from a decision on a motion to suppress evidence. We are bound by the trial court's findings of historical fact if they are supported by constitutionally sufficient evidence. State v. Vasquez-Villagomez,346 Or. 12, 23, 203 P.3d 193 (2009). Further, "[i]n the absence of express factual findings, we presume that the trial court decided the disputed facts in keeping with its ultimate conclusion." S ...


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.