State ex rel. Juvenile Dept. of Multnomah County v. Fikes
Citation | 116 Or.App. 618,842 P.2d 807 |
Parties | In the Matter of Anthony Fikes, a child. STATE ex rel. JUVENILE DEPARTMENT OF MULTNOMAH COUNTY, Respondent, v. Anthony FIKES, Appellant. 83306; CA A66689. |
Decision Date | 02 December 1992 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
Vicki R. Vernon, Portland, filed the brief, for appellant.
Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., and Yuanxing Chen, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, filed the brief, for respondent.
Before RICHARDSON, P.J., and DEITS and DURHAM, JJ.
Child appeals from a juvenile court order finding him to be within the court's jurisdiction because of conduct that would constitute the crime of possession of a controlled substance if committed by an adult. ORS 475.992(4). He assigns error to the court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained when the police searched him after an allegedly unlawful stop. On de novo review, ORS 419.561(4), we affirm.
The facts are not in dispute. While Officers Hendricks and Kruger were patrolling a North Portland neighborhood near Unthank Park at approximately 10 p.m., they noticed child standing on a sidewalk with a group of five or six other youths. Suspecting drug activity, the officers parked their patrol car on the other side of the block, got out of the car and approached the group on foot from opposite sides "to surprise the people, take them off guard." Hendricks approached child from behind, startling him, and noticed that child was visibly nervous as Hendricks told him of neighbors' complaints of drug dealing. Hendricks then asked for permission to search child. Child responded, "Yeah, go ahead." Child did not notice that Kruger was also there until approximately two minutes after Hendricks had begun his search. While searching child's pockets, Hendricks found $309 in cash and a canvas pouch. He asked for permission to open the pouch, which child granted. The pouch contained a white residue that Hendricks testified appeared to be cocaine.
Child filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the search, arguing that the search was unlawful because it followed an unlawful stop and because his consent to search was not validly obtained. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that there was no stop and that child knowingly and voluntarily gave Hendricks consent to search:
Child argues that his encounter with Hendricks was a stop and, therefore, a seizure of his person. 1 The state contends that the encounter between child and Hendricks, at least initially, was mere conversation and, consequently, not a seizure. In State v. Holmes, 311 Or. 400, 813 P.2d 28 (1991), the Supreme Court identified three general categories of encounters between the police and citizens and discussed whether each of the encounters constituted a "seizure" of the person under Article 1, section 9:
311 Or. at 407, 813 P.2d 28. (Citations and footnotes omitted.)
However, as the court noted in State v. Gerrish, 311 Or. 506, 510, 815 P.2d 1244 (1991), the categories are guidelines and are not exhaustive or conclusive as to whether a seizure has occurred.
In Holmes, the court provided guidance as to the degree of intrusiveness necessary to constitute a seizure. It explained that a seizure occurs (1) when an officer "intentionally and significantly restricts, interferes with, or otherwise deprives" a person of his liberty or freedom of movement; or (2) when an individual believes that that has occurred and his belief is "objectively reasonable in the circumstances." State v. Holmes, supra, 311 Or. at 409, 813 P.2d 28. Having stated the standards, the court recognized that the "test will seem rather vague when unadorned by judicial interpretation based upon specific fact situations" and will require an analysis of the totality of the circumstances of each case. 311 Or. at 408, 813 P.2d 28.
In this case, Hendricks approached child and told him of neighborhood complaints of drug activity and sales. Although child was surprised by Hendricks, neither Hendricks nor the other officer, Kruger, took any action that significantly restricted, interfered with or otherwise deprived child of his liberty or freedom of movement. Child's encounter involved only Hendricks, and there was no weapon drawn or physical contact that could be interpreted as a restriction on child's liberty. He was not told that he could not leave. He was neither forced to alter his course of conduct nor summoned away from a task. See State v. Allen, 112 Or.App. 70, 826 P.2d 127, rev. den., 314 Or. 176, 836 P.2d 1345 (1992); State v. Johnson, 105 Or.App. 587, 590, 805 P.2d 747 (1991); State v. Canape, 46 Or.App. 453, 458, 611 P.2d 1190 (1980). Under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude, that during the initial encounter between child and Hendricks, there was not any significant interference with child's liberty.
The second part of the inquiry in Holmes is whether a reasonable person would have perceived an interference with his freedom. Child did not testify that he did not think that he was free to leave. However, even assuming that child believed that he was not free to leave, we conclude that that belief was not objectively reasonable under the circumstances. As explained in State v. Holmes, supra, 311 Or. at 410, 813 P.2d 28:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Of Or. v. Hall
...hearing. 4. Specifically, in its letter ruling, the trial court stated: "This case is similar to State ex rel. [Juv.] Dept. v. Fikes, [116 Or. App. 618, 842 P.2d 807] (1992). For the reasons set forth therein, Defendant's Motion to Suppress is denied." In Fikes, 116 Or. App. at 623-24, 842 ......
-
State v. Hall
...first suppression hearing. 4. Specifically, in its letter ruling, the trial court stated: "This case is similar to State ex rel [Juv.] Dept. v. Fikes, 116 Or.App. 618 (1992). For the reasons set forth therein, Defendant's Motion to Suppress is In Fikes, 116 Or.App. at 623-24, 842 P.2d 807, ......
-
State v. Aguilar
...permission to search. We assessed the totality of the circumstances and held that the consent was voluntary. State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. Fikes, 116 Or App 618, 842 P2d 807 (1992). The pertinent inquiry there was not whether the officer had authority to ask the question but whether, consideri......
-
State v. Ashbaugh
...at 37, 200 P.3d at 161 (Edmonds, J., dissenting). In support of that sweeping proposition, the dissent cites State ex rel. Juv. Dept. v. Fikes, 116 Or.App. 618, 842 P.2d 807 (1992). However, as the dissent subsequently observes, Fikes holds merely that the defendant's belief in that case wa......