concluding that the officers had seized the defendant where they informed him that they were investigating an armed robbery, told him to put his identification on the table, and told him that they would be on their way once they had “clear[ed] this matter up”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that the officers had seized the defendant where they informed him that they were investigating an armed robbery, told him to put his identification on the table, and told him that they would be on their way once they had “clear[ed] this matter up”
- stating that one “recognized category of street encou'nter[] between policeman and citizen” is a “temporary restraint of the citizen’s liberty (a ‘stop’), justified by reasonable suspicion (or reliable indicia) of the citizen’s activity”
- explaining that an officer may arrest a person if justified by probable cause and stop a person if justified by reasonable suspicion
- recognizing three types of encounters and observing that a stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TONGUE, J.,
concurring.
I reluctantly concur, but only for the reason that a minority of this court "fought and lost the battle” in a recent case involving similar facts. See State v. Valdez, 277 Or 621 , 561 P2d 1006 (1977) (Tongue, J., dissenting).
Howell, J., joins in this concurring opinion.