State v. Onstad
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1ConcurrenceArmstrong, J.
The majority reverses the trial court because it concludes that, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer did not stop defendant before defendant moved the small white bindle from his pocket to his waistband. I believe that the officer stopped defendant before defendant moved the bindle, but because the stop was based on reasonable suspicion, I concur with the majority’s result.
Under ORS 131.605(5), “[a] ‘stop’ is a temporary restraint of a person’s liberty by a peace officer lawfully present in any place.” A person is stopped when, considering the totality of the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. EhlyOregon Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. HolmesOregon Supreme Court · 1991
- State v. WarnerOregon Supreme Court · 1978
- State v. MatthewsOregon Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. SpenstCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1983
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.