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. Senin

Court of Appeals of Oregon

December 18, 2019

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
ROMAN VASILYERICH SENIN, Defendant-Appellant.

          Submitted March 6, 2019

          Washington County Circuit Court 16CR26172; Kirsten E. Thompson, Judge.

          Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Meredith Allen, Deputy Public Defender, Offce of Public Defense Services, fled the briefs for appellant.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney General, fled the briefs for respondent.

          Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and Kistler, Senior Judge.

         Case Summary

         Appealing from a judgment of conviction for possession of heroin, ORS 475.854, defendant assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence that he contends derived from (1) an unlawfully extended traffic stop and (2) an illegally conducted search of his car, both in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. Held: (1) The police order for defendant to get back into his car at the outset of the traffic stop did not unlawfully extend the encounter; and (2) the subsequent search of defendant's car was validly excepted from the warrant requirement as one conducted incident to an arrest. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress.

         [301 Or.App. 359] ORTEGA, P. J

         Appealing from a judgment of conviction for possession of heroin, ORS 475.854, defendant assigns error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence that he contends derived from (1) an unlawfully extended traffic stop and (2) an illegally conducted search of his car, both in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. We conclude, first, that the police order for defendant to get back into his car at the outset of the traffic stop did not unlawfully extend the encounter and, second, that the subsequent search of defendant's car was validly excepted from the warrant requirement as one conducted incident to an arrest. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress, and we affirm.[1]

         We review a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress for legal error and are bound by that court's findings of historical facts if there is evidence in the record to support them. State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or. 163, 165-66, 389 P.3d 1121 (2017). In the absence of express findings, we presume that the trial court found the facts consistently with its ultimate conclusion. Id. at 166. Consistently with those standards, we state the uncontroverted facts as recounted by the officers at the suppression hearing.

         On the night giving rise to this matter, defendant drove into the parking lot of a Hillsboro convenience store, where Officer Weed was sitting in his patrol car. As defendant passed by, Weed observed that defendant's car had non-functioning license plate lights, so he activated his overhead lights and stopped defendant. As soon as defendant pulled into a parking space, the lone passenger in the car got out and walked towards the convenience store.[2] The passenger never returned during the encounter. Weed parked behind [301 Or.App. 360] defendant's car, blocking defendant in against the store building. As defendant got out of the car, Weed observed something drop out of defendant's lap onto the ground outside of the car; at the time, Weed believed the dropped item to be a piece of trash. Defendant started to walk back towards Weed, leading Weed to order, "Get back in your car." Weed issued the order as a safety precaution, in light of his attention being split between defendant's movement and the passenger's potential return. Defendant complied. Weed then approached the driver-side window to ask for defendant's driver license, proof of insurance, and registration information. While defendant looked for the requested documents, Weed asked defendant where he was coming from. Defendant answered that he was heading from Beaverton to Portland, which did not make sense to Weed given that both those areas were east of their Hillsboro location.

         By this time, Officer Mace had arrived to back up Weed. While Weed collected the information from defendant, Mace spotted a syringe cap in the passenger side of the car; he notified Weed of the discovery. Weed handed defendant's documents to Mace and asked Mace to process the citation. While looking over the documents, Mace asked defendant whether he was diabetic. Defendant responded "no" but stated that a friend-whom he could not name-was. Mace returned to the patrol car to process the citation while Weed asked defendant for, and was denied, consent to search the car for drugs. Weed then asked for a drug-detection dog to be sent to the location.[3]

         Eventually, Mace signaled for Weed-as the officer who initiated the traffic stop-to sign the citation. As Weed [301 Or.App. 361] was signing the citation, he noticed a syringe lying on the ground beneath the driver's door, where he had observed something drop from defendant's lap earlier. The parking lot was well-lit, and the syringe was the only object lying there. The syringe lacked a cap, had a bent needle, and contained blood-like liquid residue. Based on Weed's training and experience, users of needles for medical purposes, such as diabetes, do not leave their needles lying loose; instead, that behavior is associated with illicit drug users. Weed also knew from his training and experience that illicit drug users often leave residual substance in the syringe for later reinjection.

         Instead of issuing the finished citation or otherwise interacting with defendant, Weed field-tested the syringe, which took about two minutes and yielded a presumptive-positive result for heroin. Weed approached defendant and asked him about the syringe, ownership of which defendant denied-stating that it belonged to a friend-but he eventually admitted to having dropped it. Around that time, the drug dog arrived, and Weed asked defendant to step out of the car, handcuffed him, and placed him in the back of the patrol car. The officers then let the drug dog into defendant's car, where it alerted to the center ...


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.