Summary
The Oregon Supreme Court held that officers seized the defendant under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution when they ordered her to leave her home and remain on the porch during an investigation of a possible domestic assault. The court nevertheless concluded that the seizure was lawful because the officers had reasonable grounds to temporarily detain and question her as a potential victim or witness. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the officers' orders directing defendant to leave her home and remain on the porch while they investigated a possible domestic assault constituted a seizure under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.
- Whether officers may constitutionally stop and temporarily detain a person whom they reasonably believe is a potential material witness to or victim of a recently committed crime for on-the-scene questioning.
- Whether the seizure was reasonable because probable cause and exigent circumstances justified removing defendant and her husband from the home and temporarily detaining defendant to investigate the apparent domestic assault.
- Whether the officer's inquiries concerning defendant's identity and prior arrest history exceeded the permissible scope of the detention.
Holdings
- Defendant was seized when officers ordered her to leave her home and remain on the porch because those directives were a show of authority that significantly restricted her liberty and freedom of movement.
- Under Article I, section 9, officers may, in appropriate circumstances, stop and temporarily detain a person whom they reasonably believe is a potential material witness to a crime for on-the-scene questioning.
- The seizure was reasonable under Article I, section 9, because officers had probable cause to believe that defendant's husband had assaulted her and exigent circumstances justified ordering both individuals out of the home and separating them.
- The officers lawfully detained defendant temporarily to investigate the apparent assault and did not exceed the permissible scope of the detention by attempting to verify her identity and asking about her prior arrest and the charge involved.
- The trial court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress the pipe discovered during the subsequent consensual search.
Key quotations
“We therefore hold that officers constitutionally may, in appropriate circumstances, stop and temporarily detain for questioning a person whom they reasonably believe is a potential material witness to a crime.” (609)
“We further agree with the basic test that the state has proposed for determining the circumstances in which such a temporary detention will be reasonable.” (609)
“In summary, we hold that defendant was seized by the officers’ directives to step out of her home and remain on her front porch because those directives were a show of authority that would cause a reasonable person in defendant’s circumstances to believe that her liberty had been significantly restricted.” (615)
Factual background
Police responded to an incomplete 9-1-1 call from defendant's home after hearing a woman say "stop it" and "get off me" and a man yelling. The officers observed defendant's swollen eye, ordered defendant and her husband onto the porch, handcuffed and separated the husband, and instructed defendant to remain on the porch while an officer questioned her about the call and apparent domestic assault. During questioning, an orange syringe cap fell from defendant's pant leg; defendant admitted intravenous drug use and consented to a search that revealed a glass pipe with drug residue.
Procedural history
The circuit court denied defendant's motion to suppress a glass pipe discovered during a consensual search, concluding that she had not been seized. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed. The Court of Appeals held that she had been unlawfully seized and reversed the trial court. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the circuit court's judgment.