State v. Miller, SC S064136
| Citation | 428 P.3d 899 (Mem),363 Or. 742 |
| Decision Date | 25 October 2018 |
| Docket Number | SC S064136 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Petitioner on Review, v. William P. MILLER, Respondent on Review. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Kali Montague, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, Salem, filed the petition for reconsideration on behalf of respondent on review. Also on the petition was Ernest Lannet, Chief Defender.
No appearance contra.
Before Walters, Chief Justice, and Balmer, Kistler, Nakamoto, Flynn, and Nelson, Justices.**
Defendant has petitioned for reconsideration of our decision in State v. Miller , 363 Or. 374, 422 P.3d 240 (2018), in which we held that the officer who was about to administer field sobriety tests to defendant during a lawful investigatory stop did not unlawfully extend the stop by asking if defendant was carrying a firearm because (1) the officer perceived a circumstance-specific danger and decided that an inquiry about weapons was necessary to address that danger; and (2) the officer’s perception and decision were objectively reasonable. Defendant correctly identifies a potential incongruity between our analysis, which listed among the circumstances giving rise to the officer’s objectively reasonable perception of danger his "specific basis to believe that defendant might be carrying a gun," and the text of footnote 2 of the opinion, which emphasized that the officer’s knowledge that defendant was licensed to carry a concealed handgun "plays no role in our legal analysis." Id. at 388, 377 n. 2, 422 P.3d 240.
We accordingly allow the petition for reconsideration and modify our opinion as follows:
The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.
** Duncan, J., did not participate in the reconsideration of this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sarmento
...to effectuate a traffic stop."); see also State v. Miller , 363 Or. 374, 422 P.3d 240, modified and adh'd to on recons. , 363 Or. 742, 428 P.3d 899 (2018) (further articulating Jimenez standard when an officer makes a weapons inquiry); State v. Pichardo , 360 Or. 754, 759-60, 388 P.3d 320 (......
-
State v. Gilkey
...a nuance on the weapons inquiry issue in State v. Miller , 363 Or. 374, 388-89, 422 P.3d 240, adh'd to as modified on recons. , 363 Or. 742, 428 P.3d 899 (2018) (internal citations omitted). There, the Oregon Supreme Court held that"[t]he issue we resolve is whether the officer's single que......
-
State v. Stevens
...and the question. Id. at 429, 353 P.3d 1227 ; see also State v. Miller , 363 Or. 374, 422 P.3d 240, adhered to as modified , 363 Or. 742, 428 P.3d 899 (2018) (applying Jimenez to a suspect stopped for driving under the influence).This court's decisions in Amaya and Thompkin fit comfortably ......
-
State v. Toll
...417, 429-30, 353 P.3d 1227 (2015) ; see also State v. Miller , 363 Or. 374, 381, 422 P.3d 240, adh'd to as modified on recons , 363 Or. 742, 428 P.3d 899 (2018). Accordingly, we affirm. Whether an officer's actions effected an unlawful extension of a stop is a question of law, which we revi......