rejecting a similar request to overrule Davis
How later courts described this case
- rejecting a similar request to overrule Davis
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
652
Argued and submitted July 30, affirmed September 23, 2020
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
TYLER MICHAEL BROWN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Lincoln County Circuit Court
18CR59273; A169722
473 P3d 1164
Sheryl Bachart, Judge.
Blake Dore argued the cause for appellant. Also on the
brief was Dore Law Firm, LLC.
Robert M. Wilsey, Assistant Attorney General argued
the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General.
Before DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and Mooney, Judge, and
Hadlock, Judge pro tempore.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
Cite as 306 Or App 652(2020) 653
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for
criminal driving while suspended or revoked, ORS 811.182(4)
(2017), amended by Or Laws 2018, ch 76, § 13, and raises
three assignments of error. We reject his first two assign-
ments without further discussion. In his third assignment of
error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in deny-
ing his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a sher-
iff’s deputy “ran the plate” of the truck defendant was driv-
ing while both were in line at a restaurant drive-through.
Defendant argued that the deputy’s random running of the
license plate was a warrantless search unsupported by prob-
able cause, and, consequently, there was no “lawful cause” to
stop defendant. The trial court denied the motion, relying on
State v. Davis, 237 Or App 351, 355-58, 239 P3d 1002 (2010),
aff’d by an equally divided court, 353 Or 166, 295 P3d 617
(2013), which held, under similar facts, that a law enforce-
ment officer’s query of DMV records without individualized
suspicion was not a search under Article I, section 9, of the
Oregon Constitution.
On appeal, defendant does not dispute that Davis
controls, but urges us to overrule Davis “in light of chang-
ing technology and law enforcement practices in the inter-
vening years.” Defendant has not persuaded us that, on
this record, Davis is “plainly wrong,” as he must for us to
overrule that existing precedent. State v. Civil, 283 Or App
395, 406, 388 P3d 1185 (2017) (explaining that we will only
overturn precedent where it is “ ‘plainly wrong,’ a rigorous
standard grounded in presumptive fidelity to stare decisis”).
Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err in
denying defendant’s suppression motion.
Affirmed.