2015 ORS 131.615¹
Stopping of persons

(1) A peace officer who reasonably suspects that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime may stop the person and, after informing the person that the peace officer is a peace officer, make a reasonable inquiry.

(2) The detention and inquiry shall be conducted in the vicinity of the stop and for no longer than a reasonable time.

(3) The inquiry shall be considered reasonable if it is limited to:

(a) The immediate circumstances that aroused the officer’s suspicion;

(b) Other circumstances arising during the course of the detention and inquiry that give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; and

(c) Ensuring the safety of the officer, the person stopped or other persons present, including an inquiry regarding the presence of weapons.

(4) The inquiry may include a request for consent to search in relation to the circumstances specified in subsection (3) of this section or to search for items of evidence otherwise subject to search or seizure under ORS 133.535 (Permissible objects of search and seizure).

(5) A peace officer making a stop may use the degree of force reasonably necessary to make the stop and ensure the safety of the peace officer, the person stopped or other persons who are present. [1973 c.836 §31; 1997 c.866 §1]

Notes of Decisions

In General

Law en­force­­ment of­fi­cers have justifica­tion for temporarily seizing or stopping per­son to con­duct investiga­tion if of­fi­cer's activities are reasonably related to investiga­tion and reasonably necessary to effectuate investiga­tion. State v. Watson, 353 Or 768, 305 P3d 94 (2013)

Reasonable Suspicion

In general

Where of­fi­cer knows crime has been committed, ques­tion becomes whether reasonable possibility exists that per­son observed is connected to that crime, so factors that would otherwise be of marginal significance may justify stop. State v. Denny, 27 Or App 455, 566 P2d 719 (1976); State v. Ott, 54 Or App 309, 634 P2d 825 (1981), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Richards, 57 Or App 140, 643 P2d 1348 (1982)

A stop must be justified by facts suggesting crim­i­nal ac­tivity which can be objectively evaluated apart from police instinct. State v. Valdez, 277 Or 621, 561 P2d 1006 (1977); State v. Carter/Dawson, 34 Or App 21, 578 P2d 790 (1978), aff'd 287 Or 479, 600 P2d 873 (1979); State v. Hoggans, 35 Or App 669, 582 P2d 466 (1978); State v. Scott, 59 Or App 220, 650 P2d 985 (1982); State v. Lichty, 313 Or 579, 835 P2d 904 (1992)

Officer's subjective suspicion concerning occupants of automobile does not invalidate stop based on objectively identifiable traffic viola­tion. State v. Carter/Dawson, 34 Or App 21, 578 P2d 790 (1978), aff'd 287 Or 479, 600 P2d 873 (1979); State v. Tucker, 286 Or 485, 595 P2d 1364 (1979); State v. Zimmerlee, 45 Or App 107, 607 P2d 982 (1980), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Kolendar, 100 Or App 319, 786 P2d 199 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Where police of­fi­cer observed vehicle weaving within its lane and had been informed through radio check that registered owner was wanted per­son, fact that radio report was mis­taken did not make stop invalid. State v. Perry, 39 Or App 37, 591 P2d 379 (1979)

Objective basis for stop is determined by facts actually relied on by of­fi­cer, not facts of­fi­cer could have chosen to rely on. State v. Henry, 55 Or App 503, 638 P2d 1167 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

This sec­tion requires only that of­fi­cer reasonably suspect per­son has committed crime before making stop, not probable cause. State v. North, 72 Or App 1, 694 P2d 990 (1985), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Lichty, 313 Or 579, 835 P2d 904 (1992)

Police of­fi­cer may stop vehicle he sees being driven on public roadway if he has probable cause to believe that registered owner of vehicle has suspended driver license, unless driver's observable physical characteristics put of­fi­cer on notice that driver is not vehicle's owner. State v. Wright, 85 Or App 545, 737 P2d 646 (1987); State v. Panko, 101 Or App 6, 788 P2d 1026 (1990)

Stop made solely pursuant to general community caretaking func­tion does not support use of resulting evidence in crim­i­nal trial. State v. Lumsden, 93 Or App 604, 763 P2d 194 (1988)

Where male member of group had offered to sell drugs to third party while separated from group, of­fi­cer did not have reasonable suspicion to believe female defendant had committed crime simply because she was part of group. State v. Manss, 99 Or App 498, 783 P2d 24 (1989)

Knowledge of several police of­fi­cers may collectively es­tab­lish reasonable suspicion that defendant has committed crime. State v. Walsh, 103 Or App 517, 798 P2d 262 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Officer's conclusional state­ment that defendant was visibly intoxicated was sufficient communica­tion of articulable facts supporting stop. State v. Wright, 112 Or App 567, 829 P2d 93 (1992), aff'd 315 Or 124, 843 P2d 436 (1992)

Traffic infrac­tion is not re­quired for of­fi­cer to have reasonable suspicion that driver is impaired. State v. Sulser, 127 Or App 45, 871 P2d 126 (1994)

Whether of­fi­cer had subjective reasonable suspicion may be inferred from con­duct without direct testimony by of­fi­cer re­gard­ing suspicion. State v. Belt, 137 Or App 440, 905 P2d 862 (1995), aff'd 325 Or 6, 932 P2d 1177 (1997); State v. Bickford, 157 Or App 386, 970 P2d 234 (1998), Sup Ct review denied

Level of suspicion for making stop and level of suspicion re­quired for expanding scope of investiga­tion during course of traffic stop are identical. State v. Aguilar, 139 Or App 175, 912 P2d 379 (1996), Sup Ct review denied

Fact that there are possible legal explana­tions for observed behavior does not negate reasonable suspicion of crim­i­nality. State v. Crites, 151 Or App 313, 948 P2d 757 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

Whether suspicion is objectively reasonable is determined based upon totality of circumstances. State v. Hammonds/Deshler, 155 Or App 622, 964 P2d 1094 (1998)

Ques­tioning during lawful stop on matter unrelated to basis for stop does not require independent reasonable suspicion re­gard­ing unrelated matter. State v. Hendon, 222 Or App 97, 194 P3d 149 (2008)

Based on tips or citizen reports

Informant's tip, parts of which were extrinsically corroborated, was sufficient to es­tab­lish reasonable basis for suspicion that crime had been committed, so as to permit lawful stop. State v. Wilson, 31 Or App 783, 571 P2d 554 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Where anonymous informant reported, inter alia, that operator of yellow Ford pickup had nearly forced him off road, had appeared very intoxicated and had pulled rifle on him during dispute, of­fi­cer had requisite "reasonable suspicion" to detain driver; overruling State v. Caproni, 19 Or App 789, 529 P2d 974 (1974). State v. Lindstrom, 37 Or App 513, 588 P2d 44 (1978)

Where fish and game of­fi­cer received in­for­ma­­tion one week before stop that there had been illegal deer kills in area sometime in past and this in­for­ma­­tion did not relate to specific per­sons or vehicles stopped, stop was improper under this sec­tion. State v. Odam, 40 Or App 551, 595 P2d 1277 (1979), aff'd 290 Or 160, 619 P2d 647 (1980)

Anonymous tip that defendant was engaged in illegal fishing activities each night gave police reasonable suspicion to stop his truck. State v. Dickenson, 43 Or App 1023, 607 P2d 754 (1979)

Anonymous tip pos­ses­sing no indicia of reliability was not sufficient basis for police of­fi­cer's stop of defendant's car on suspicion defendant had committed crime. State v. Black, 80 Or App 12, 721 P2d 842 (1986); State v. Tibbet, 96 Or App 116, 771 P2d 654 (1989)

Tip from named citizen informant has sufficient indicia of reliability to support stop. State v. Faulkner, 89 Or App 120, 747 P2d 1011 (1987); State v. Lichty, 313 Or 579, 835 P2d 904 (1992)

Where children told of­fi­cer they thought van was following them, of­fi­cer's stop of van was illegal as in­for­ma­­tion obtained from children was insufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion defendant had committed crime. State v. Hyder, 90 Or App 317, 752 P2d 327 (1988)

Whether un­iden­ti­fied informant's tip gives rise to reasonable suspicion that someone has committed crime depends upon particular circumstances surrounding informant's contact with police. State v. Vanness, 99 Or App 120, 781 P2d 391 (1989)

Named citizen informant's conclusional state­ment that bag of cocaine fell out of wallet was shorthand rela­tion of objective observa­tions upon which of­fi­cer could rely to form reasonable suspicion substance was cocaine. State v. Lichty, 313 Or 579, 835 P2d 904 (1992)

Based on presence in area

Stop of only vehicle observed traveling in general area where crime had just occurred was reasonable. State v. Jones, 23 Or App 706, 543 P2d 1103 (1975); State v. Teal, 94 Or App 381, 765 P2d 827 (1988); State v. Nguyen, 176 Or App 258, 31 P3d 489 (2001)

Notwithstanding that defendant was walking in area of high vice ac­tivity and talking to known prostitute, stop of defendant for suspicion of at­tempted prostitu­tion was not reasonable. State v. Brown, 31 Or App 501, 570 P2d 1001 (1977)

Where of­fi­cer received police dispatch that burglary had been committed in last half hour within approximately three miles of place of­fi­cer observed defendant's car, and car was driven evasively, there was justifica­tion for of­fi­cer to reasonably suspect crim­i­nal ac­tivity. State v. Bartosz, 34 Or App 123, 578 P2d 426 (1978)

Where crime had just occurred in low traffic area at late hour, stop of nearby vehicle partially matching and partially contradicting descrip­tion of suspect vehicle was justified. State v. Ragsdale, 34 Or App 549, 579 P2d 286 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Where police of­fi­cer was guarding mayor's home in response to threats against mayor, defendant's visit to neighboring house did not provide grounds to stop and frisk. State v. Gaffney, 36 Or App 105, 583 P2d 582 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Where of­fi­cer heard radio report that burglary was in process at certain address, was within eighth to quarter of mile from scene, and stopped vehicle coming from general direc­tion of burglary, reasonable suspicion standard was not met. State v. Fitzgerald, 36 Or App 473, 584 P2d 785 (1978)

Where defendant was stopped in general residential area of recent series of burglaries and closely fit descrip­tion of burglary suspect, of­fi­cers reasonably suspected the defendant had committed burglaries. State v. Canape, 46 Or App 453, 611 P2d 1190 (1980)

Where defendant parked in parking lot of automobile supply business and approached front door of building at one a.m. on Saturday morning, of­fi­cer had reasonable suspicion that crime was being committed. State v. Anderson, 46 Or App 501, 612 P2d 309 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Where police of­fi­cer, parked in front of police sta­tion, heard sound of breaking glass at about 3 a.m. and soon after saw defendant's car come down alley from police parking lot, circumstances were sufficient to arouse suspicion that crime had been committed and stop was proper. State v. Schedler, 47 Or App 181, 614 P2d 591 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

Where telephone call claiming caller planned to detonate bomb was traced to telephone booth, defendant's con­duct in nearby booth was peculiar and defendant took "hard look" at area known to be loca­tion of bomb, there was reasonable suspicion justifying stop of defendant. State v. Miller, 54 Or App 323, 634 P2d 1361 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Where Defendant and Companion Were Sitting In Parked Truck At 3

45 a.m. in deserted parking lot and no other evidence of robbery or burglary existed, though facts made it reasonable for police of­fi­cers to inquire further, they did not create reasonable suspicion that defendant or companion had committed crime. State v. Messer, 71 Or App 506, 692 P2d 713 (1984)

That of­fi­cer was aware from prior experience and training that downtown bus mall had reputa­tion for weapons-carrying narcotics offenders did not, in absence of addi­tional facts related to per­son in ques­tion, provide reasonable suspicion to believe that per­son stopped for pos­ses­sion of less than one ounce of marijuana was armed and dangerous. State v. Baldwin, 76 Or App 723, 712 P2d 120 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Stop of defendant was not based on reasonable suspicion where store was robbed by black man who fled on foot and three minutes later, on way to robbery scene in predominantly white area, of­fi­cer met car occupied by two black men traveling in opposite direc­tion and where as car approached, passenger turned head away from of­fi­cer. State v. Hunter, 86 Or App 697, 740 P2d 234 (1987)

Officer did not have reasonable suspicion for stop, where defendant's vehicle was parked in unlit driveway next to drive up window of closed restaurant. State v. Butkovich, 87 Or App 587, 743 P2d 752 (1987), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Greer, 93 Or App 409, 763 P2d 158 (1988)

Insufficient basis for stop existed where defendant was parked in area containing both legitimate businesses and hotel notorious for drug trafficking, had been seen in area before and was examining something in her hands which she concealed upon confronta­tion by police. State v. Moya, 97 Or App 375, 775 P2d 927 (1989)

Stop was supported by reasonable suspicion where defendant, who was stranger, was present in driveway of residence when usual residents appeared to be away, front door was standing open even though it was rainy day in March and defendant's vehicle was same make as others used in similar burglaries. State v. LaFrienier, 97 Or App 672, 776 P2d 1325 (1989)

Police had reasonable suspicion defendant was cultivating marijuana because he was only per­son seen in vicinity of marijuana patch during two-day surveillance, was there for approximately two hours and carried tool that looked like clippers, so stop was lawful. State v. Brown, 100 Or App 204, 785 P2d 790 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Based on behavior, descrip­tion or other

Evidence that, upon seeing marked police car behind him, driver pulled off and exchanged places with passenger, and when of­fi­cer again followed car, former driver kept glancing back, was sufficient "reasonable suspicion" for stop. State v. Albertsen, 37 Or App 679, 590 P2d 615 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Where of­fi­cers heard CB transmissions allegedly concerning illegal fishing between defendant and others and observed furtive con­duct there was sufficient grounds for stop under this sec­tion. State v. Pratt, 41 Or App 149, 597 P2d 842 (1979), Sup Ct review denied

Unusually slow speed of vehicle that only partially matched descrip­tion of suspect vehicle did not provide reasonable suspicion justifying stop. State v. Ponce, 43 Or App 665, 603 P2d 1243 (1979)

Where police of­fi­cer knew that robbery had been committed five hours before, defendant's car matched descrip­tion of car involved in robbery and defendant sought to evade of­fi­cer after of­fi­cer began to trail him, reasonable suspicion existed to stop defendant. State v. Armstrong, 52 Or App 161, 628 P2d 1206 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Officer's knowledge that serious crime, robbery at credit union, had been committed, coupled with circumstances he had observed, made it reasonable to suspect that people in automobile were connected with crime and investigatory stop was therefore proper. State v. Ott, 54 Or App 309, 634 P2d 825 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

That defendant matched descrip­tion of burglar fairly closely raised reasonable suspicion justifying stop, and addi­tional fact defendant turned and ran after voluntarily agreeing to accompany of­fi­cer to burglary scene gave of­fi­cer probable cause to arrest. State v. Battle, 58 Or App 224, 648 P2d 411 (1982)

Where crime being investigated had not occurred recently, general resemblance to suspects did not give of­fi­cers basis for stopping defendants. State v. Hageman, 59 Or App 96, 650 P2d 175 (1982)

Police Officer Had Reasonable, Articulable Basis for Stop Where

1) he had observed exchange between defendant and an­oth­er per­son; 2) his training and experience told him that what he saw was "hand-to-hand sale" of narcotics; and 3) defendant and other per­son were outside restaurant that had reputa­tion as hangout for drug dealers and users. State v. Norman, 66 Or App 443, 674 P2d 626 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Where police of­fi­cers saw two cars parked next to each other in somewhat secluded area and saw defendant walk from one car to the other carrying brown paper bag with something in it, they did not have objective reasonable suspicion that would justify stopping defendant. State v. King, 67 Or App 749, 680 P2d 10 (1984)

Facts that defendant was in "ratty" car in upper-income neighborhood and that defendant apparently had trouble keeping pipe lit did not give of­fi­cer reason to believe defendant had committed or was com­mit­ting of­fense of either burglary or pos­ses­sion of controlled substance. State v. Chambers, 69 Or App 681, 687 P2d 805 (1984)

Where defendant, driving car matching descrip­tion of one present at time of burglary several days before, was near scene where burglary had occurred, police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant. State v. Martin, 71 Or App 1, 691 P2d 154 (1984)

Where defendant was driving 20-25 m.p.h. in 55 m.p.h. zone and followed "drive/stop/proceed" pattern, and where police of­fi­cer knew from training and experience that those two circumstances often indicate that a per­son is driving while intoxicated, of­fi­cer had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant. State v. Ratliff, 82 Or App 479, 728 P2d 896 (1986), aff'd on other grounds, 304 Or 254, 744 P2d 247 (1987)

Officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop defendant driver because he had flushed face and wa­tery eyes and apparently did not react to pedestrian who stepped close to defendant's moving vehicle. State v. Kimmel, 82 Or App 486, 728 P2d 894 (1986)

Police of­fi­cer was justified in stopping vehicle where immediately before stop, he observed vehicle parked unattended in area that had recently experienced crim­i­nal ac­tivity and car's descrip­tion matched car suspected of being used in prior robbery. State v. Wright, 85 Or App 545, 737 P2d 646 (1987)

Police of­fi­cer had reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed crime of driving under influence of intoxicants given defendant's bloodshot eyes, fatigue, his being alone in car parked on shoulder of road with engine running and lights on and with faint odor of alcohol on his breath and, therefore, of­fi­cer's stop of defendant was justified. State v. Guerricagoitia, 89 Or App 163, 747 P2d 386 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Defendant's nervousness and fact he seemed to be sitting at odd angle did not justify reasonable belief that he had committed crime or was armed and presently dangerous. State v. Houghton, 91 Or App 71, 754 P2d 13 (1988)

Where of­fi­cer's suspicion was not based only on defendant's looking out of place in neighborhood, but also on knowledge of pre­vi­ous burglaries in area and on in­for­ma­­tion received re­gard­ing defendant's con­duct, suspicion was reasonable. State v. Wolfe, 93 Or App 401, 763 P2d 154 (1988), Sup Ct review denied

Police had reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed crime of entering vehicle without con­sent of owner where security of­fi­cers told police defendant had been working under dashboard of car with flashlight and there had been number of car prowls in that area, including one that day. State v. Codr, 99 Or App 417, 782 P2d 442 (1989)

Where of­fi­cers knew vehicle used in robbery was white van with California plates and van was pro­ceed­ing along possible escape route, there was reasonable suspicion to support stop. State v. Umphrey, 100 Or App 433, 786 P2d 1279 (1990), Sup Ct review denied

Where of­fi­cer observed defendant experiencing difficulty walking, trying to avoid being seen driving on two occasions and then driving at inappropriately slow speed, reasonable suspicion existed that defendant was driving under influence of intoxicants. State v. Nelson, 109 Or App 97, 817 P2d 1344 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Where of­fi­cer observed known prostitute entering defendant's car and woman appeared to be engaging in sexual act with defendant, of­fi­cer had reasonable suspicion that defendant had violated city ordinance and had authority to stop defendant's car to make inquiry. City of Portland v. Spangler, 109 Or App 370, 819 P2d 754 (1991)

Officer's reasonable suspicion that defendant had supplied false name was not sufficient basis for stop. State v. Olson, 116 Or App 525, 842 P2d 424 (1992)

State­ment by automobile occupants overheard and reported by citizen, loca­tion of automobile and behavior of occupants when police drove past gave reasonable cause for stop. State v. Jacobus, 318 Or 234, 864 P2d 861 (1993)

Under collective knowledge doctrine, of­fi­cer may reasonably rely on fellow of­fi­cer's direc­tion to stop vehicle for traffic viola­tion when fellow of­fi­cer has probable cause to believe traffic viola­tion has occured. State v. Soldahl, 331 Or 420, 15 P3d 564 (2000)

Evidence of recent drug use by per­son who is not currently intoxicated, without more, is insufficient to create reasonable suspicion that per­son presently possesses drugs. State v. Holcomb, 202 Or App 73, 121 P3d 13 (2005), modified 203 Or App 35, 125 P3d 22 (2005)

Deten­tion and Inquiry

Circumstances

Where, two hours after crime, uniformed of­fi­cers observed defendant, who matched crime suspect's descrip­tion, in area two miles from crime, of­fi­cers' stop of defendant and inquiry as to his activities at time of crime were investigatory in nature, and did not constitute custodial interroga­tion which would require advising defendant of rights prior to making inquiry. State v. Mitchell, 35 Or App 809, 583 P2d 14 (1978), Sup Ct review denied

Where traffic cita­tion could be issued and defendant gave inconsistent answers concerning identity, transporting defendant to police sta­tion to es­tab­lish identity did not transform stop into arrest. State v. Tucker, 286 Or 485, 595 P2d 1364 (1979)

This sec­tion does not prohibit game check point stops, as legislature did not intend to limit all stops for law en­force­­ment purposes to those permitted by this sec­tion. State v. Tourtillott, 289 Or 845, 618 P2d 423 (1980)

This sec­tion is not the exclusive authority for stopping of per­sons by police of­fi­cers. State v. Morris, 56 Or App 97, 641 P2d 77 (1982), Sup Ct review denied

Traffic infrac­tion for which police of­fi­cer could neither arrest or issue cita­tion was not crime such as would justify deten­tion and inquiry. State v. Painter, 296 Or 422, 676 P2d 309 (1984)

Two-hour deten­tion of occupants of premises secured by police, based on in­for­ma­­tion inadequate for search warrant, was unreasonable where police used time only to try to develop independent addi­tional evidence to justify warrant. State v. Wise, 72 Or App 58, 695 P2d 68 (1985)

Where permission for search is obtained in absence of coercive factors, lack of basis for stop does not justify suppression of evidence. State v. Mercado, 105 Or App 582, 805 P2d 744 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

ORS 810.410 (Arrest and citation) and this sec­tion provided authority for of­fi­cer to open door of motor vehicle when of­fi­cer observed motor vehicle oddly parked and discovered defendant slumped in driver's seat with driver's door slightly open and engine running. State v. Rhodes, 315 Or 191, 843 P2d 927 (1992)

Where two of­fi­cers present did not draw weapons, did not use or threaten use of force, did not make promises or use other means of coercion, con­sent to search was voluntary. State v. Jacobus, 318 Or 234, 864 P2d 861 (1993)

Scope of

Deten­tion and inquiry beyond time, place and subject-matter limits codified in this sec­tion, which are all components of "intrusiveness," constitute invalid random interven­tion into liberty and privacy of a per­son. State v. Carter/Dawson, 34 Or App 21, 578 P2d 790 (1978), aff'd 287 Or 479, 600 P2d 873 (1979)

Where display of wad of money at tavern had been explained to of­fi­cer's satisfac­tion, continua­tion of stop was not proper. State v. Warner, 284 Or 147, 585 P2d 681 (1978)

Search of car was impermissible intrusion in traffic stop after defendant had been frisked, was outside car, and had cooperated with of­fi­cers. City of Portland v. Poindexter, 38 Or App 551, 590 P2d 781 (1979)

Where police of­fi­cer had reasonable cause to stop vehicle, but ascertained that driver had no crim­i­nal record or outstanding process against him, further deten­tion was unreasonable and evidence obtained after defendant's proper identity was ascertained was properly suppressed. State v. Perry, 39 Or App 37, 591 P2d 379 (1979)

Permissible scope of ques­tioning was exceeded where defendant was ques­tioned about possible presence of weapons in vehicle when immediate circumstance that aroused of­fi­cer's suspicion was that vehicle was apparently parked in viola­tion of municipal ordinance. State v. Kennedy, 68 Or App 529, 683 P2d 116 (1984)

Ques­tioning Concerning Contents of Bag Was Beyond Scope of Stop for Suspicion of Unrelated Crime and Unsupported By Independent Suspicion

con­sent to search based on admission of contents under above circumstances was not voluntary and evidence must be suppressed. State v. Smith, 73 Or App 287, 698 P2d 973 (1985)

Where warrant check does not take inordinately long time to complete, process does not exceed legitimate scope of stop. State v. Smith, 73 Or App 287, 698 P2d 973 (1985)

Where police checked vehicle passenger for valid driver license, continua­tion of stop of passenger after license check came back clear was unlawful. State v. Castrejon, 79 Or App 514, 719 P2d 916 (1986)

Circumstances that aroused of­fi­cer's suspicion must still exist when of­fi­cer begins inquiry and, where police of­fi­cer asked defendant for driver license when circumstances arousing suspicion (initial belief defendant was someone else recently cited for driving while suspended) no longer existed, mo­tion to suppress evidence obtained was proper. State v. Harris, 88 Or App 433, 745 P2d 813 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Where search occurred after and as result of arrest pursuant to outstanding warrant, even if stop preceding search was unlawful, arrest under warrant purged evidence of taint of illegality. State v. Carmickle, 97 Or App 269, 775 P2d 908 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Where police of­fi­cer requested to search defendant's purse and found controlled substance, search did not exceed permissible scope of inquiry which was to investigate whether she was involved in drug ac­tivity. State v. Olney, 97 Or App 310, 775 P2d 914 (1989)

Police did not exceed permissible scope of inquiry by continuing inquiry after defendant produced docu­menta­tion for car and explained defendant's rela­tionship to owner because docu­ments did not connect defendant to car and police did not have to accept defendant's explana­tion as true. State v. Codr, 99 Or App 417, 782 P2d 442 (1989)

Odor of alcohol on breath of driver stopped for traffic infrac­tion is objective, observable fact that permits of­fi­cer reasonably to suspect intoxica­tion and to administer sobriety tests. State v. Kolendar, 100 Or App 319, 786 P2d 199 (1990), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Anderson, 108 Or App 294, 814 P2d 190 (1991)

Transport of suspect to scene of crime three blocks away violated require­ment that deten­tion and inquiry be con­ducted in vicinity of stop. Jasper v. Motor Vehicles Division, 130 Or App 603, 883 P2d 244 (1994)

Officer may make any inquiry reasonably related to general investiga­tion of matter prompting stop. State v. Strawn, 154 Or App 460, 963 P2d 34 (1998)

Where police of­fi­cer making stop for traffic viola­tion has all in­for­ma­­tion necessary to issue cita­tion, delaying issuance of cita­tion in order to engage in addi­tional ques­tioning without reasonable suspicion of crim­i­nal ac­tivity unlawfully extends dura­tion of stop. State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 182 P3d 209 (2008), aff'd State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610, 227 P3d 695 (2010)

When Encounter Is Stop

Where defendant voluntarily complied with of­fi­cer's request to speak with him and defendant gave his identifica­tion card and volunteered in­for­ma­­tion that there was discrepancy between his current address and that on card, defendant was free to walk away if he chose and there was no "stop." State v. Hanna, 52 Or App 503, 628 P2d 1246 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Where of­fi­cer approached suspect in parking lot and called out for suspect to wait, contact did not constitute stop. State v. Tracy, 52 Or App 945, 630 P2d 370 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Stop was invalid where defendant had pulled over voluntarily and stopped, of­fi­cers had no reasonable suspicion to believe she had committed a crime and of­fi­cers had turned on emergency overhead lights. State v. Walp, 65 Or App 781, 672 P2d 374 (1983)

Turning on patrol car overhead lights does not necessarily transform encounter into stop. State v. Dubois, 75 Or App 394, 706 P2d 588 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant pedestrian was chased by police of­fi­cer in car through pedestrian mall without any reasonable suspicion of having committed crime, illegal stop occurred and state­ments by defendant after addi­tional of­fi­cers had converged on scene was exploita­tion of illegal act. State v. Penney, 87 Or App 357, 742 P2d 660 (1987)

Although request for identifica­tion may not transform encounter into stop, where of­fi­cer requested and retained defendant's license, there was sufficient show of authority to lead reasonable per­son to believe there was no freedom to leave. State v. Starr, 91 Or App 267, 754 P2d 618 (1988)

Stop statute contemplates that per­son may be involuntarily stopped, and it was lawful for of­fi­cer to use force to effect "stop." State v. Hasan, 93 Or App 142, 760 P2d 1377 (1988)

Reten­tion of fishing license during inquiry is not sufficient restraint on ability to leave to transform encounter into stop. State v. Hammond, 99 Or App 293, 781 P2d 1243 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant engaged of­fi­cer in conversa­tion and reminded of­fi­cer of earlier arrest for driving while suspended, request by of­fi­cer after checking license that defendant also show vehicle registra­tion did not constitute stop. State v. Quigley, 100 Or App 418, 786 P2d 1274 (1990)

Where of­fi­cer did not park in way that prevented defendant from leaving, patrol car's headlights and spotlight did not transform encounter into stop, nor did request for license. State v. Calhoun, 101 Or App 622, 792 P2d 1223 (1990)

Officer's request for identifica­tion did not transform encounter into stop when defendant stopped on his own and was not restrained from leaving. State v. Jensen, 102 Or App 323, 794 P2d 448 (1990)

Where of­fi­cer requested and received driver license, stood by window of defendant's vehicle and noted license in­for­ma­­tion and immediately returned license, there was not sufficient show of authority to constitute stop. State v. Woods, 102 Or App 671, 796 P2d 1209 (1990)

Encounter with police of­fi­cer was not stop when defendant was free to leave, and of­fi­cer merely stood by restaurant booth, asked what defendant was holding in his hand and shined flashlight on defendant's hand. State v. Morelli, 109 Or App 589, 820 P2d 1369 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Where request made of passenger was consistent with alleged purpose of traffic stop, existence of other motive did not render request a "stop." State v. Woods, 134 Or App 53, 894 P2d 511 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Reten­tion of valuable prop­erty extends dura­tion of stop whether or not reten­tion impairs mobility of stopped per­son. State v. Bailey, 143 Or App 285, 924 P2d 833 (1996)

Encounter becomes stop when restraint or in­ter­fer­ence with citizen freedom of move­ment is significantly out of ordinary. State v. Blair/Vanis, 171 Or App 162, 14 P3d 660 (2000), Sup Ct review denied

Police of­fi­cer's physical restraint of per­son does not convert stop into arrest. State v. McKinney, 174 Or App 47, 23 P3d 386 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

Where suspect is not handcuffed, restraint on suspect's liberty consistent with of­fi­cer's need to control scene during investiga­tion does not convert stop into arrest. State v. Werowinski, 179 Or App 522, 40 P3d 545 (2002), Sup Ct review denied

Where per­son displays identifica­tion to of­fi­cer, but of­fi­cer is not in pos­ses­sion of identifica­tion, no stop has occurred. State v. Cohan, 227 Or App 63, 204 P3d 816 (2009), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

57 OLR 195 (1977)

Notes of Decisions

Even assuming that defendant was lawfully stopped on reasonable suspicion of trafficking in narcotics, the warrantless seizure of the defendant's bag for one hour and twenty minutes until a narcotics-sniffing dog was summoned was unlawful because these sec­tions limit seizures in connec­tion with a stop to dangerous or deadly weapons. State v. Dupay, 62 Or App 798, 622 P2d 736 (1983), Sup Ct review denied

Exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained following illegal stop when defendant, after stop, committed new crime justifying arrest. State v. Weiland, 72 Or App 25, 695 P2d 85 (1985), Sup Ct review denied


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 131—Preliminary Provisions; Limitations; Jurisdiction; Venue; Criminal Forfeiture; Crime Prevention, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors131.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 131, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano131.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.