State v. Gilmore
123 Or. App. 594, 1993 Ore. App. LEXIS 1676, 860 P.2d 882 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An officer's non-coercive request for identification from an individual in a parked vehicle does not constitute a "stop" or "seizure" under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, so long as the officer does not significantly interfere with the individual's liberty and a reasonable person would feel free to leave.
Facts:
- On August 30, 1991, at 11:30 a.m., defendant and two companions were sitting in defendant's parked pickup truck in a state office parking lot.
- Sergeant Long radioed Officer Grow, stating that a person in the vehicle was consuming an alcoholic beverage in violation of a city ordinance.
- Officer Grow approached the truck on foot to investigate.
- Upon reaching the vehicle, Grow saw no signs of alcohol consumption or any alcoholic beverages but proceeded to request identification from all three occupants.
- Defendant opened the glove compartment of his truck to retrieve his identification.
- As defendant opened the glove compartment, Officer Grow observed a handgun inside.
- Grow ordered the occupants out of the truck and seized the weapon.
- In response to questioning, defendant admitted that he was the owner of both the truck and the handgun.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant was charged in trial court with unlawful possession of a firearm.
- The defendant filed a motion to suppress the handgun, arguing it was discovered during an unlawful stop. The trial court denied the motion.
- The defendant also filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal, which the trial court denied.
- Following a trial, a jury found the defendant guilty.
- The defendant appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Oregon, assigning error to the trial court's denial of his motions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's non-coercive request for identification from the occupants of a parked vehicle, without reasonable suspicion of a crime, constitute a 'stop' under ORS 131.605(5) and a 'seizure' under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Durham, J.
No. A police officer's non-coercive request for identification from occupants of a parked vehicle does not constitute a stop or seizure. A 'stop' is a 'seizure' that occurs when an officer intentionally and significantly restricts an individual's liberty or freedom of movement, or when an individual holds an objectively reasonable belief that their liberty has been so restricted. The court determined that this interaction was a 'fact-specific inquiry' into the 'totality of the circumstances.' Here, Officer Grow's conduct did not amount to a stop because the interaction was 'casual,' occurred in daylight in a parked car, and the officer did not use physical force, a weapon, or a show of authority to coerce compliance. Grow did not block the vehicle or tell the defendant he could not leave. The mere fact that the officer was in uniform did not transform this consensual encounter into a seizure. Therefore, defendant was not stopped when he opened the glove compartment, and the subsequent discovery of the firearm was lawful.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the boundary between a consensual police encounter and a 'stop' that requires reasonable suspicion under Oregon law. It establishes that an officer's mere request for identification, without more coercive circumstances, does not elevate the interaction to a seizure. The ruling provides law enforcement with the authority to initiate non-coercive conversations and make inquiries in public places without constitutional justification. For future cases, courts will analyze the totality of the circumstances—including the officer's demeanor, physical actions, and the setting—to determine if a reasonable person would have felt their liberty was significantly restricted.
