State v. Anderson

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Anderson

612 P.2d 309, 46 Or. App. 501, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2861

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 9, 1980

DocketC79-03-30869, CA 15722

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 612 P.2d 309 (State v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Anderson, 612 P.2d 309, 46 Or. App. 501, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2861 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

[503]*503SCHWAB, C. J.

Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle in violation of a court order, ORS 484.740, and driving while suspended, ORS. 487.560. On appeal, he contends that the evidence of the fact that he did not have a valid driver’s license in his possession should have been suppressed. ¹

At about 1:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning, defendant was driving behind a police car. He turned into the parking lot of an automobile supply business and parked his automobile. He left his automobile and was approaching the front door of the building when he was stopped by the police officer. The business was closed. There were automobile parts located around the building and the officer was concerned that the defendant intended to commit burglary. The officer asked the defendant what his purpose was. Defendant stated that he was there to pick up some parts and that he had the owner’s permission. The defendant was then asked to show the officer his operator’s license. When he could not produce one, the officer detained defendant while he "ran a records check” and thereby discovered the suspension.

Relying on State v. Valdez, 277 Or 621, 561 P2d 1006 (1977), defendant argues that under ORS 131.615² the police officer had no right to stop the defendant when and where he did. We disagree. The actions of the defendant which took place in view of the police officer were sufficient to create a reasonable [504]*504suspicion in the mind of the officer that the crime of larcency or burglary was underway. The stop being proper, the officer had the right to ask defendant to display a driver’s license. State v. Brister, 34 Or App 575, 579 P 2d 863, rev den 284 Or 521 (1978).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[503]*503SCHWAB, C. J.

Defendant was convicted of operating a motor vehicle in violation of a court order, ORS 484.740, and driving while suspended, ORS. 487.560. On appeal, he contends that the evidence of the fact that he did not have a valid driver’s license in his possession should have been suppressed. ¹

At about 1:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning, defendant was driving behind a police car. He turned into the parking lot of an automobile supply business and parked his automobile. He left his automobile and was approaching the front door of the building when he was stopped by the police officer. The business was closed. There were automobile parts located around the building and the officer was concerned that the defendant intended to commit burglary. The officer asked the defendant what his purpose was. Defendant stated that he was there to pick up some parts and that he had the owner’s permission. The defendant was then asked to show the officer his operator’s license. When he could not produce one, the officer detained defendant while he "ran a records check” and thereby discovered the suspension.

Relying on State v. Valdez, 277 Or 621, 561 P2d 1006 (1977), defendant argues that under ORS 131.615² the police officer had no right to stop the defendant when and where he did. We disagree. The actions of the defendant which took place in view of the police officer were sufficient to create a reasonable [504]*504suspicion in the mind of the officer that the crime of larcency or burglary was underway. The stop being proper, the officer had the right to ask defendant to display a driver’s license. State v. Brister, 34 Or App 575, 579 P 2d 863, rev den 284 Or 521 (1978).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

612 P.2d 309, 46 Or. App. 501, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 2861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-anderson-orctapp-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack