State v. Fisher
Decision Date | 08 June 1971 |
Citation | 484 P.2d 864,92 Adv.Sh. 881,5 Or.App. 483 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Nicholas Harry FISHER, Respondent. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
James C. Farrell, Deputy Dist. Atty., Roseburg, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Doyle L. Schiffman, Dist. Atty. Roseburg.
Arthur A. Wilson, Roseburg, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FOLEY and THORNTON, JJ.
Defendant was indicted for unlawful possession of marihuana in violation of ORS 474.020. Prior to trial he successfully moved to suppress the evidence, marihuana, seized by the arresting policeman. The state appeals under the provisions of ORS 138.060(4), 1 contending that the order of suppression was not supported by the evidence.
The arresting officer testified that he stopped the defendant as a routine traffic matter solely to advise him that his rear license plate was loose. He testified that during the colloquy that followed he became concerned because of sudden, suspicious movements made by defendant's passenger, and that he therefore conducted a search for weapons which resulted in his finding marihuana in the glove compartment of the automobile. 2 The passenger testified that he did not make any sudden or suspicious movements.
A routine traffic stop is of itself not sufficient cause for making a warrantless search. In Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 1889, 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968), the Supreme Court, speaking of policemen, stated:
'* * * In the case of the self-protective search for weapons, he must be able to point to particular facts from which he reasonably inferred that the individual was armed and dangerous * * *.' 392 U.S. at 64, 88 S.Ct. at 1903.
See also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).
In the case of a warrantless search the burden of proving reasonable cause rests with the state. State v. Roderick, 243 Or. 105, 412 P.2d 17 (1966). The trial judge, after hearing the conflicting testimony, obviously found that the state had failed to meet its burden. In his memorandum opinion he stated:
It is not our function to try a matter such as this de novo. In Alcorn v. Gladden, 237 Or. 106, 111, 390 P.2d 625, 628 (1964), the court said:
In Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or. 485, 487, 443 P.2d 621, 622 (1968), the court said:
'It has been called to the court's attention * * * that the scope of review by this court of questions concerning voluntariness of admissions and confessions has not always been consistent. As a result, it would appear appropriate to discuss in some detail what we consider our proper scope of review of questions concerning the voluntariness of admissions and confessions.
In the case at bar there was a clear conflict in the testimony. The conflict has been resolved by the trier of fact; his findings will not be disturbed by this court. 3
Affirmed.
The search and seizure here occurred shortly after a passenger car driven by defendant and hearing out-of-state license plates was halted by a police officer on routine traffic patrol. The officer testified that after he turned on his red warning light to signal the driver to stop he saw the passenger, who was sitting next to the driver, lean down lowering his right shoulder as if placing or reaching for some object beneath him on the floorboard. Following his normal procedure, the officer first asked defendant for his operator's license and instructed the passenger to keep his hands in sight. The defendant produced and showed the officer an Oregon driver's license in the name of Michael James White, although he was operating a car with Washington license plates. (The police did not learn defendant's true identity until much later). The officer then asked him to produce a car registration card. The defendant replied that he did not have one because he had just purchased the car the week before and had not received a registration yet. The officer testified that shortly after commencing his questioning the passenger made a sudden hand movement for the glove compartment of the car; that he then looked directly at the man, who thereupon returned his hands to their former position. The officer averred that in the next few minutes the passenger made three similar moves, including placing one hand beneath a blanket which was on the front seat. Each time the officer looked directly at the passenger, his hands were returned to their former position.
The passenger, while acknowledging some hand movements, denied reaching toward the glove compartment or beneath the blanket. He did not deny the officer's testimony as to his earlier action. The defendant testified that his back was to the passenger and he could not see what the passenger did with his hands at all times. The officer stated that becoming concerned for his own safety he ordered the passenger to get out of the car. (The defendant was already standing outside the car.) The passenger then got out and stood against the rear door on the opposite side while the officer searched for weapons in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Florance
...State v. Blackburn/Barber, 97 Or.Adv.Sh. 490, 511 P.2d 381 (1973); Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or. 485, 443 P.2d 621 (1968); State v. Fisher, 5 Or.App. 483, 484 P.2d 864 (1971). In this case, the trial judge chose to believe Forristahl and to disbelieve the other witnesses. See, n. 4, infra. Forri......
-
State v. Hockings
...not disturb on appeal if the evidence will sustain the findings. Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or. 485, 443 P.2d 621 (1968); State v. Fisher, 5 Or.App. 483, 484 P.2d 864 (1971). The trial court resolved the conflict in the evidence adverse to defendant; there was sufficient evidence to sustain the f......
-
State v. Blackburn
...never made that statement. We have frequently applied the rule of Ball v. Gladden, supra, in appeals by defendants. In State v. Fisher, 5 Or.App. 483, 484 P.2d 864 (1971), we noted that the knife cuts both ways--that the Ball v. Gladden, supra, rule is equally applicable in appeals by the E......
-
State v. Taggart
...she had not made any such decision prior to that time, and this finding is supported by substantial evidence. State v. Fisher, Or.App., 92 Adv.Sh. 881, 484 P.2d 864 (1971).4 Even if this case had to turn on property concepts, we note the forfeiture provisions of ORS 91.090 are not without e......