State v. Anderson
| Citation | 743 P.2d 715,304 Or. 139 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Petitioner on Review, v. Steven C. ANDERSON, Respondent on Review. TC G 16104; CA A35552; SC S33384. |
| Decision Date | 15 September 1987 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the petition were Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., and David Schuman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem. Also on the memorandum in response to court questions was Richard D. Wasserman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem.
Orrin Leigh Grover, Molalla, filed a memorandum in response to court questions and argued the cause for respondent on review.
This case involves the legality of a sobriety roadblock conducted to discover and arrest persons committing the crime of driving while under the influence of intoxicants and to gather evidence for use in the criminal prosecution.
From 10:15 to 11:45 p.m., on the evening of May 18, 1984, the Oregon State Police, in conjunction with officers of the Clackamas County Sheriff's Department, set up a roadblock on Highway 213 at South Mulino Road. The purpose of the roadblock was to check for vehicle registrations and driver sobriety. Defendant was among those stopped. He was arrested for driving under the influence of intoxicants, ORS 487.540, since renumbered as 813.010, and for violating the open container law, ORS 487.841, renumbered 811.170. He moved to suppress evidence of these offenses, claiming that the stop was illegal because it was unauthorized by statute or regulation and in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed per curiam, relying on its decision in Nelson v. Lane County, 79 Or.App. 753, 720 P.2d 1291 (1986), aff'd 304 Or. 97, 743 P.2d 692 (1987).
In Nelson v. Lane County, we suggested that an administrative search, that is, one for a purpose other than the enforcement of laws by means of criminal sanctions, could be authorized by lawmakers and conducted pursuant to administrative regulations. Plaintiff Nelson was not subjected to criminal sanctions, and defendant Oregon State Police presented a document it characterized as an administrative regulation governing roadblocks. However, defendant was unable to point to the necessary explicit statutory authorization to conduct roadblocks. We held that a lack of authority rendered the roadblock illegal.
In this case, as in State v. Boyanovsky, 304 Or. 131, 743 P.2d 711 (1987), criminal sanctions unquestionably were the intended consequence of the roadblock. Evidence deduced from the roadblock stop was used against defendant to secure his conviction. Evidence thus used must be obtained within the usual constitutional proscriptions. Or. Const. Art. I, § 9. The officers had neither a warrant nor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rodgers
....... Moreover, if the purpose of a traffic stop is to investigate crime, evidence gained from the stop must be obtained in compliance with Article I, section 9. See State v. Anderson, 304 Or. 139, 141, 743 P.2d 715 (1987) (criminal sanctions were intended consequence of sobriety roadblock; thus, where officers had neither warrant nor individualized suspicion that defendant was engaged in illegal activity, evidence gained from roadblock must be suppressed). Seizures or searches ......
-
Nelson v. Lane County
...violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. State v. Boyanovsky, 304 Or. 131, 743 P.2d 711 (1987); State v. Anderson, 304 Or. 139, 743 P.2d 715 (1987). The present case is an appeal from a civil judgment in which plaintiff seeks civil remedies against public officials. Three ......
-
Weber v. Oakridge School Dist. 76
...search is one conducted "for a purpose other than the enforcement of laws by means of criminal sanctions." State v. Anderson, 304 Or. 139, 141, 743 P.2d 715 (1987). That does not mean that the search may not be conducted for purposes of investigation. Nelson, 304 Or. at 104 n. 4, 743 P.2d 6......
-
State v. Henderson, 16852
......28] 493 A.2d 1271 (1985); South Dakota: State v. Olgaard, 248 N.W.2d 392 (1976); Texas: Webb v. State, 695 S.W.2d 676 (1985); Vermont: State v. Martin [145 Vt. 562] 496 A.2d 442 (1985); Washington: State v. Marchand [104 Wash.2d 434] 706 P.2d 225 (1985); Oregon: State v. Anderson, 743 P.2d 715 (1987); New Hampshire: State v. Koppel [127 N.H. 286] 499 A.2d 977 (1985); Oklahoma: State v. Smith, 674 P.2d 562 (1984); Pennsylvania: Commonwealth v. Tarbert [348 Pa.Super. 306] 502 A.2d 221 (1985); Washington: City of Seattle v. Mesiani, [110 Wash.2d 454, 755 P.2d 775] ......