State v. Moffat
This text of 816 P.2d 714 (State v. Moffat) 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.
Opinion
Defendant appeals from a conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants. ORS 813.010. He assigns as error the denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm.
The arresting officer saw defendant’s car attempting to enter a public street from an “enter only” driveway of a bank. The officer pulled into the bank driveway and extended his hand out of his car’s window in a “palm-opened fashion.” He informed defendant that he was leaving from an “enter only” driveway. The officer testified that he stopped defendant only to impart that information and that the stop was unrelated to any investigatory purpose. No traffic offense had occurred. As a result of the conversation and defendant’s actions, the officer formed a reasonable suspicion that defendant was driving while under the influence and stopped him again minutes later.
Defendant argues that the initial stop violated ORS 131.615(1).1 Under State v. Holmes, 311 Or 400, 813 P2d 28 (1991), and State v. Gerrish, 311 Or 506, 815 P2d 1244 (1991), no seizure of defendant occurred at that time. Therefore, no violation of ORS 131.615(1) occurred.
Defendant’s other argument does not warrant discussion.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
816 P.2d 714, 108 Or. App. 635, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 1362, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-moffat-orctapp-1991.