person has committed violation in Oregon

14 Oregon opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2024 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Terheargreen orctapp · 1996 · cited in 2 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2012–2014 2 sentences 2014We explained that a stop occurs “when an officer tells a person that the person has committed a violation or crime.” Id. at 165 (citing State v. Terhear/Goemmel, 142 Or App 450, 459 , 923 P2d 641 (1996) (“[The officer] began the encounter by telling [the defendant] that he had just seen him break the law. 2014We explained that a stop occurs “when an officer tells a person that the person has committed a violation or crime.” Id. at 165 (citing State v. Terhear/Goemmel, 142 Or App 450, 459 , 923 P2d 641 (1996) (“[The officer] began the encounter by telling [the defendant] that he had just seen him break the law.	1	2
State v. Stookeygreen orctapp · 2013 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015State v. Stookey, 255 Or App 489, 491, 297 P3d 548 (2013) (citing ORS 810.410(2) and (3); State v. Matthews, 320 Or 398, 402 , 884 P2d 1224 (1994)). 2015State v. Stookey, 255 Or App 489, 491, 297 P3d 548 (2013) (citing ORS 810.410(2) and (3); State v. Matthews, 320 Or 398, 402 , 884 P2d 1224 (1994)).	1	1
State v. Allengreen orctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014An ordinary citizen, faced with such a statement by a uniformed police officer, would not believe that he or she was free to leave.”)); see also State v. Allen, 224 Or App 524, 531 , 198 P3d 466 (2008) (“[The] defendant was seized when [an officer] told her that he ‘knew she was coming from a dope house’ and ‘that if she was honest and gave [him] the dope [he] would give her a citation.’” (Third and fourth brackets in original.)). 2014An ordinary citizen, faced with such a statement by a uniformed police officer, would not believe that he or she was free to leave.”)); see also State v. Allen, 224 Or App 524, 531 , 198 P3d 466 (2008) (“[The] defendant was seized when [an officer] told her that he ‘knew she was coming from a dope house’ and ‘that if she was honest and gave [him] the dope [he] would give her a citation.’” (Third and fourth brackets in original.)).	1	1
State v. Giffengreen orctapp · 1989 · cited in 1 Oregon opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991 1 sentence 1991See State v. Giffen, 98 Or.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Matthews green or · 1994 2 sentences 2019ORS 810.410(3)(b); State v. Matthews, 320 Or 398, 402 , 884 P2d 1224 (1994). 2019ORS 810.410(3)(b); State v. Matthews, 320 Or 398, 402 , 884 P2d 1224 (1994).	5	2013–2019
State v. Derby green orctapp · 2019 2 sentences 2024On the one hand, our case law is clear that, “[t]o stop and detain a person for a traffic violation,” Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution requires an officer to “have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a violation.” State v. Derby, 301 Or App 134, 138 , 455 P3d 1009 (2019). 2024On the one hand, our case law is clear that, “[t]o stop and detain a person for a traffic violation,” Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution requires an officer to “have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a violation.” State v. Derby, 301 Or App 134, 138 , 455 P3d 1009 (2019).	2	2023–2024
State v. Morfin-Estrada green orctapp · 2012 2 sentences 2015Id. at 165 . 2014We explained that a stop occurs “when an officer tells a person that the person has committed a violation or crime.” Id. at 165 (citing State v. Terhear/Goemmel, 142 Or App 450, 459 , 923 P2d 641 (1996) (“[The officer] began the encounter by telling [the defendant] that he had just seen him break the law.	2	2014–2015
State v. Lipka green orctapp · 2021 2 sentences 2024And probable cause requires that “the facts that the officer per- ceived, either personally or as relayed to the officer, must in fact satisfy the elements of [an offense].” State v. Lipka, 314 Or App 154, 164 , 498 P3d 811 , rev dismissed, 368 Or 703 (2021). “[W]hen the facts an officer perceives do not meet the essential elements of the violation, probable cause is lack- ing.” Id. at 165. 2024And probable cause requires that “the facts that the officer per- ceived, either personally or as relayed to the officer, must in fact satisfy the elements of [an offense].” State v. Lipka, 314 Or App 154, 164 , 498 P3d 811 , rev dismissed, 368 Or 703 (2021). “[W]hen the facts an officer perceives do not meet the essential elements of the violation, probable cause is lack- ing.” Id. at 165.	1	2024–2024
State v. Little green orctapp · 2023 1 sentence 2023“In order to stop and detain a per- son for a traffic violation, an officer ‘must have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a violation.’ ” Little, 326 Or App at 789 (quoting State v. Rabanales-Ramos, 273 Or App 228, 234 , 359 P3d 250 (2015)).	1	2023–2023
State v. Rabanales-Ramos green orctapp · 2015 2 sentences 2023“In order to stop and detain a per- son for a traffic violation, an officer ‘must have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a violation.’ ” Little, 326 Or App at 789 (quoting State v. Rabanales-Ramos, 273 Or App 228, 234 , 359 P3d 250 (2015)). 2023“In order to stop and detain a per- son for a traffic violation, an officer ‘must have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a violation.’ ” Little, 326 Or App at 789 (quoting State v. Rabanales-Ramos, 273 Or App 228, 234 , 359 P3d 250 (2015)).	1	2023–2023
State v. Gulley green or · 1996 2 sentences 2009ORS 153.039(2) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]n enforcement officer may stop and detain any person if 530 the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a violation.” The trial court ruled that the words “reasonable grounds” in the statute impose a different standard than the “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity standard in ORS 131.615(1), relying on the reasoning in State v. Gulley, 324 Or 57 , 921 P2d 396 (1996). 2 In Gulley , the defendant moved to suppress evidence seized during the search of his residence pursuant to a condition of his probation. 2009ORS 153.039(2) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]n enforcement officer may stop and detain any person if 530 the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a violation.” The trial court ruled that the words “reasonable grounds” in the statute impose a different standard than the “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity standard in ORS 131.615(1), relying on the reasoning in State v. Gulley, 324 Or 57 , 921 P2d 396 (1996). 2 In Gulley , the defendant moved to suppress evidence seized during the search of his residence pursuant to a condition of his probation.	1	2009–2009
Walker v. City of Portland green orctapp · 1985 2 sentences 1987ORS 133.072 provides: "(1) When a person has committed a violation as defined in ORS 161.565 in the presence of a peace officer, the officer may issue and serve a citation to the person as provided in ORS 133.066 and 133.065. "(2) The peace officer may stop and detain a person for a violation offense for the purposes of investigation reasonably related to the violation offense, identification of the person and issuance of a citation to the person. "(3) A peace officer may detain a person pursuant to this section only for such time as it is reasonably necessary to investigate and verify the per 1987ORS 133.072 provides: “(1) When a person has committed a violation as defined in ORS 161.565 in the presence of a peace officer, the officer may issue and serve a citation to the person as provided in ORS 133.066 and 133.065. “(2) The peace officer may stop and detain a person for a violation offense for the purposes of investigation reasonably related to the violation offense, identification of the person and issuance of a citation to the person. “(3) A peace officer may detain a person pursuant to this section only for such time as it is reasonably necessary to investigate and verify the per	1	1987–1987
State v. Mepham green orctapp · 1980 1 sentence 1985Igo therefore discovered the knife as a result of his seizure and search of defendant's person. [4] The trial court stated, in its conclusions of law, that "[i]t is not at all clear that what the officer saw was only a violation as defined by ORS 161.565 and ORS 475.992." However, the court explained that conclusion by stating, in the next sentence, that "[i]t is not unreasonable to believe that if one sees a small quantity of marijuana there is likely to be a larger quantity available." The court's conclusion was based on an approach which we rejected as a matter of law in State v. Tallman, s	1	1985–1985

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 810.410 (6) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 813.010 (5) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.605 (4) OR § Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.615 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

OR 14 (1985–2024) IN 11 (2008–2015) MD 2 (2004–2026) KS 2 (2024–2026)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check