OR discusses the objective and subjective components of a stop on the accused

In Oregon there are two components to a stop: Objective and subjective. What would the defendant have believed, and was it reasonable what he actually believed. State v. Parker, 225 Ore. App. 610, 202 P.3d 205 (2009):

Thus, a Holmes type (b) inquiry implicates conjunctive subjective and objective components–viz., the defendant subjectively believed that he or she was significantly restrained and that belief was objectively reasonable. Consequently, as the party bearing the burden of demonstrating the lawfulness of the search, the state can prevail against a Holmes type (b)-based motion to suppress if it disproves either of those conjunctive components. That is, the state can prevail either (1) by proving that the defendant did not believe that the officer had significantly restrained or interfered with the defendant’s freedom of movement or (2) if such a belief would not be objectively reasonable. Id. at , 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1918 at *13. In assessing whether “such a belief is objectively reasonable under the circumstances,” the operative inquiry is whether “‘a reasonable person in defendant’s position could have believed that the officers significantly had restricted [his or her] liberty or freedom of movement.'” Id. at , 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1918 at *15 (quoting Toevs, 327 Ore at 535-36) (first emphasis in Toevs; second emphasis in Ashbaugh).

We begin with the objective component because–for reasons that will become apparent shortly–if the state were to prevail on that component, that would obviate the need for a remand. We conclude for the following reasons that, in the totality of the circumstances in this case, “a reasonable person in defendant’s position could have believed” that he was not free to go. Toevs, 327 Ore at 536. In that regard, we emphasize that the controlling inquiry is not whether every reasonable person would have so believed, but, instead, whether a reasonable person could have so believed. Cf. Ashbaugh, 225 Ore App at , 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1918 at *24-29 (Brewer, C. J., concurring).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.