State v. Castrejon - 79 Or. App. 514, 719 P.2d 916 (1986)

Rule:

The fact that a police officer learns that a person is on probation does not give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed another crime. Police officers do not have carte blanche to detain a person and conduct a search merely to look for "anything illegal."

Facts:

Officer Sweeney stopped a truck in which defendant Leonardo Delgado Castrejon was a passenger. The driver was arrested. Subsequently, an officer approached the passenger side, and defendant got out to meet him near the rear of the truck. The officer asked defendant if he had a driver's license to drive the truck. Defendant handed him a license, and the officer called in a status check. While they were waiting, defendant stated in response to questions that he had never been arrested. The radio check revealed that defendant was on probation. The officer then shined his light inside the passenger compartment and saw an open beer can. He asked for and defendant granted permission for him to search the passenger compartment. Under the passenger’s seat, the officer found a small blue pouch. The officer opened it, and found, among other things, a handgun with a clip. The officer had not specifically asked for permission to search the pouch. The officer left the gun in the truck and went back to the defendant. He told defendant that he was not under arrest but that he wanted to ask some questions. The officer read defendant Miranda warnings. Defendant said that he understood. The officer then frisked defendant. The officer felt something shaped like a film canister in defendant’s left coat pocket. As the officer started to open the canister, defendant ran from the scene. He was apprehended later that evening. Subsequently, defendant was charged with one count of being an ex-convict in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270, and one count of possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. The defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the State argued that the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress. According to the State, the court incorrectly concluded that Miranda warnings were required before any questions could be put to defendant and that defendant's consent to search did not extend to the closed container found in the pickup.

Issue:

Under the circumstances, was it proper to suppress the evidence found during the “search” of the defendant’s pickup?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court upheld the suppression of the evidence. Even if it was assumed that the defendant was lawfully stopped during the wait for the license status report, the lifespan of a valid stop was short. According to the Court, a stop that began lawfully can become unlawful when the reason for the stop was dissipated. In the case at bar, whether or not there was a stop before and during the license status check, and whether or not that stop was valid, the curtain dropped when defendant's status as a lawful driver was verified. The stop was, at least from that point forward, unlawful; therefore, evidence obtained as a result of the invalid stop was properly suppressed. The Court averred that there was a sufficient show of authority for a reasonable person to have felt that his liberty was restrained.