State v. Dickenson
| Citation | 607 P.2d 754,43 Or.App. 1023 |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. F,F |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Walt R. DICKENSON, Appellant. 15382; CA 14800. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
J. Bradford Shiley, Portland, argued the cause and submitted the brief for appellant.
Robert C. Cannon, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were James A. Redden, Atty. Gen., Walter L. Barrie, Sol. Gen., and W. Benny Won, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem.
Before TANZER, P. J., and THORNTON and CAMPBELL, JJ.
Defendant appeals from his conviction of unlawful possession of food fish during a closed season, ORS 509.011(2)(a). The sole issue is whether the stop by police of defendant's pickup truck on the basis of a tip by an anonymous informant was proper. We hold that the stop was lawful and affirm.
At the pretrial hearing on defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of the stop and subsequent search, the state presented the following testimony. Officer Pert of the Oregon State Police, who was assigned to the Fish and Game Division, testified that on June 8, 1978, he received a phone call from an anonymous caller, who told him that defendant, Walt Dickenson, had been illegally taking salmon from the Columbia River each night at Corbett Boat Landing. The officer stated that the caller, when asked, declined to identify himself. At the time, the salmon season was closed on the Columbia River, as was the commercial steelhead season, while the shad season was open. Officer Pert contacted Trooper Carver of the Oregon State Police, and met him at approximately 9:20 p. m. on June 9, 1978, at the Corbett Boat Landing. Trooper Carver was stationed in his vehicle at a viewpoint east of the landing. Officer Pert took a station on the bank near the boat moorage, and was in communication with Trooper Carver by hand radio. Officer Pert saw defendant fishing, but from his position could not determine the type of fish for which defendant was fishing. After defendant's boat came to the dock, with another person on board, a third person drove up in a pickup truck. Defendant and his passenger loaded some fish from the boat into the third person's pickup, and loaded other fish into defendant's pickup truck, which had been parked at the landing. Officer Pert was unable to tell the type of fish being loaded into the trucks. When defendant got into his truck and started to drive away, Officer Pert contacted Trooper Carver, who stopped the truck. Pert and Carver found two chinook salmon, one steelhead and a number of shad in the truck. At this time, Officer Pert issued defendant a citation.
Trooper Carver testified to essentially the same facts, stating that the police had received "numerous complaints" by anonymous callers concerning defendant's illegal fishing activities. He added that the salmon and steelhead were in "plain view" in the pickup. He also stated that defendant was a commercial fisherman known personally by Officer Pert.
The state argues that the stop was justified under either ORS 131.615(1) or ORS 496.660(1). ORS 131.615(1) provides:
"A peace officer who reasonably suspects that a person has committed a crime may stop the person and, after informing the person that he is a peace officer, make a reasonable inquiry."
"Reasonably suspects" is defined in ORS 131.605(4):
" 'Reasonably suspects' means that a peace officer holds a belief that is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time and place he acts as authorized in ORS 131.605 to 131.625."
ORS 496.660(1) provides:
"Any (game officer) may search any person, and examine any boat, automobile, aircraft, conveyance, vehicle, game bag, game coat or other receptacle for wildlife, or cold storage rooms, warehouses, taverns, boarding houses, restaurants, club rooms, outhouses, saloons, depots, hotels and all other places, except private dwelling houses, wherein wildlife may be kept or sold, and examine all packages and boxes held either for storage or shipment which they have reason to believe contain evidence of violations of the wildlife laws."
Defendant argues that under State v. Odam, 40 Or.App. 551, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schultz v. State, 2 Div. 325
...State v. Hillock, 384 A.2d 437 (Me.1978); Daugherty v. State, 40 Md.App. 535, 392 A.2d 1165 (Ct.Spec.App.1978); State v. Dickenson, 43 Or.App. 1023, 607 P.2d 754 (Ct.App.1979); State v. Odam, 40 Or.App. 551, 595 P.2d 1277 (Ct.App.1979), affirmed, 290 Or. 160, 619 P.2d 647 (1980); Gonzalez v......
-
State v. Black
...tip that he had observed possession and sale of cocaine in car in which defendant was subsequently discovered); State v. Dickenson, 43 Or.App. 1023, 607 P.2d 754 (1979) (anonymous phone call and numerous complaints that the defendant was catching salmon out of season); State v. Lindstrom, s......
-
State v. Hunt
...occasions to complain about defendant, suggesting that the guests were not fabricating the story. See 265 Or.App. 238State v. Dickenson, 43 Or.App. 1023, 1025–26, 607 P.2d 754 (1979) (the stop of the defendant was justified based on “numerous complaints” by anonymous callers that the defend......
-
State v. Hunt, 110646544
...three separate occasions to complain about defendant, suggesting that the guests were not fabricating the story. See State v. Dickenson, 43 Or.App. 1023, 1025–26, 607 P.2d 754 (1979) (the stop of the defendant was justified based on “numerous complaints” by anonymous callers that the defend......