Preliminary Provisions

ORS 131.625
Frisk of stopped persons


(1)

A peace officer may frisk a stopped person for dangerous or deadly weapons if the officer reasonably suspects that the person is armed and dangerous to the officer or other persons present.

(2)

If, in the course of the frisk, the peace officer feels an object which the peace officer reasonably suspects is a dangerous or deadly weapon, the peace officer may take such action as is reasonably necessary to take possession of the weapon. [1973 c.836 §32; 1997 c.866 §3]

Notes of Decisions

A visual search of the defendant's person is less intrusive upon privacy than a frisk and it is therefore permissible if a frisk is permitted. State v. Fent, 29 Or App 249, 562 P2d 1239 (1977), Sup Ct review denied

Where officer had made lawful stop of defendant pursuant to ORS 131.615, and had reasonable cause to suspect that defendant might possess dangerous weapons, officer was not required to make any inquiry prior to frisk of defendant. State v. Miner, 31 Or App 495, 570 P2d 998 (1977)

Violation of this section by police officer, in frisking suspected armed robber, required exclusion from evidence of drugs found in suspect's pocket, notwithstanding that frisking was good faith effort by officer to protect self and fellow officer from physical harm. State v. Fairley, 282 Or 689, 580 P2d 179 (1978)

Where officer removed spiral notebook from defendant's pocket in course of patdown, he did not have reasonable belief that "large, bulky object" was dangerous or deadly weapon. State v. Kurtz, 46 Or App 617, 612 P2d 749 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

That defendant matched fairly closely description of burglar could not alone have given rise to probable cause for arrest; that and additional fact defendant turned and ran after voluntarily agreeing to accompany officer to burglary scene did; officer had probable cause to arrest and search was incident to arrest. State v. Battle, 58 Or App 224, 648 P2d 411 (1982)

Where police had neither reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed a crime nor cause to place him under civil commitment hold or medical emergency, the frisk was unlawful, as were subsequent search and seizure. State v. Hampton, 59 Or App 512, 651 P2d 744 (1982)

Even assuming that defendant was lawfully stopped on reasonable suspicion of trafficking in narcotics, the warrantless seizure of defendant's bag for one hour and twenty minutes until a narcotics-sniffing dog was summoned was unlawful because this section limits seizures in connection with a stop to dangerous or deadly weapons. State v. Dupay, 62 Or App 798, 662 P2d 736 (1983), Sup Ct review denied

That officer was aware from prior experience and training that downtown bus mall had reputation for weapons-carrying narcotics offenders did not, in absence of additional facts related to person in question, provide reasonable suspicion to believe that person stopped for possession of less than ounce of marijuana was armed and dangerous. State v. Baldwin, 76 Or App 723, 712 P2d 120 (1985), Sup Ct review denied

Where defendant, passenger in automobile originally stopped for traffic violation, sought to suppress evidence seized during frisk by challenging stop and frisk, stop was proper under ORS 131.615 and same facts that justified stop necessarily justified reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous, making frisk proper under this section. State v. Bowen, 88 Or App 584, 746 P2d 249 (1987), Sup Ct review denied

Before lawful frisk may be conducted under this section there must have been lawful stop and mere intuition of officer cannot form entire basis for reasonable suspicion. State v. Houghton, 91 Or App 71, 754 P2d 13 (1988)

Where police officers knew arrest warrant existed for owner of vehicle for manufacture and transportation of methamphetamines, saw equipment commonly used for such manufacture in back of vehicle and knew people involved in manufacture and transportation of methamphetamines commonly carry weapons, circumstances justified suspicion that defendant was armed and dangerous. State v. Bechtold, 99 Or App 593, 783 P2d 1008 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

This section requires more than two generalized concerns to justify frisk; there must be particularized facts which give rise to reasonable suspicion that suspect poses immediate threat. State v. Matthys, 106 Or App 276, 808 P2d 94 (1991), Sup Ct review denied

Where officer had reasonable and articulable basis for believing object might contain weapon, seizure of object was reasonable. State v. Lumpkin, 133 Or App 265, 891 P2d 660 (1995), Sup Ct review denied

Belief that person has committed nonviolent crime does not, by itself, give rise to reasonable suspicion that person is armed. State v. Dyer, 141 Or App 6, 917 P2d 51 (1996)

Statutory power to frisk does not act as outer limitation on permissible officer safety measures. State v. Rickard, 150 Or App 517, 947 P2d 215 (1997), Sup Ct review denied

§§ 131.605 to 131.625

Notes of Decisions

Even assuming that defendant was lawfully stopped on reasonable suspicion of trafficking in narcotics, the warrantless seizure of the defendant's bag for one hour and twenty minutes until a narcotics-sniffing dog was summoned was unlawful because these sections limit seizures in connection with a stop to dangerous or deadly weapons. State v. Dupay, 62 Or App 798, 622 P2d 736 (1983), Sup Ct review denied

Exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained following illegal stop when defendant, after stop, committed new crime justifying arrest. State v. Weiland, 72 Or App 25, 695 P2d 85 (1985), Sup Ct review denied


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021