Court of Appeals of Oregon· 3/22/2017

State v. Washington

Citations

284 Or. App. 454
392 P.3d 348
2017 Ore. App. LEXIS 387

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

concluding that affirming on the state’s alternative basis was inappropriate when the trial court had not yet resolved the factual issues necessary to deter- mine whether officers had stopped the defendant within the meaning of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution
explaining that “reaching the state’s alternative basis would be inappropriate, because the trial court did not resolve the factual issues necessary” to resolve the legal question at issue
pro- ceeding on understanding that the defendant was stopped, where trial court had not explicitly ruled that the defendant was stopped but had ruled that stop of the defendant was justified by reasonable suspicion
the fact that a person is in a high-crime area does not support reasonable suspicion; “the police must also identify particularized facts about the defendant that support the inference that the defendant’s presence at the location is indicative of criminal activity”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Dehoog, Sercombe, Tookey

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

27 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.