{"id":4950,"date":"2011-01-26T01:18:26","date_gmt":"2010-11-29T07:32:21","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2010-11-29T07:32:21","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4950","title":{"rendered":"OR: Defendant could not have felt free to leave and was stopped without reasonable suspicion"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The trial court [recognized the realities and] found that defendant would not reasonably feel free to leave after he was stopped and was talking to the officer who asked him what he had on him and called for backup, and back up arrived. The motion to suppress should have been granted because there was no reasonable suspicion for the detention. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.publications.ojd.state.or.us\/A138429.htm\">State v. Levias<\/a>, 239 Ore. App. 116, 243 P.3d 880 (2009)*:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>On appeal, defendant asserts that, considering the circumstances (including the hour of the day, the flashing overhead lights, the officer&#8217;s call for backup, the high-crime location, and the direct questioning of defendant about criminal activity), defendant was stopped when Murphy asked him for consent to search. At that point, defendant contends, defendant reasonably believed that, in light of the circumstances, he was under investigation for criminal activity and therefore was not free to leave. In the state\u2019s view, no stop occurred; rather, Murphy engaged defendant in mere conversation, and defendant subsequently voluntarily consented to the search of his person.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Officers were patrolling around a \u201clow-end motel\u201d known for drugs and prostitution where several arrests had been made. Defendant drove into the parking lot and ultimately got stopped and was handcuffed because it was a \u201chigh crime area.\u201d The officers had a probable stolen vehicle in the parking lot, but there were no facts to link defendant to the vehicle nor to any crime. His stop was unreasonable. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.sconet.state.oh.us\/rod\/docs\/pdf\/2\/2010\/2010-ohio-5747.pdf\">State v. Clack<\/a>, 2010 Ohio 5747, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 4834 (2d Dist. November 24, 2010).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=4950\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4950","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4950","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4950"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4950\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}