 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Kindle1/14/2000
ssume a small red light could be a laser-sight on a firearm, all the other circumstances of the incident fail to support such an assumption. The car was operated normally; it was a momentary, chance encounter at an intersection; and the occupants, which these officers thought posed such a threat to their safety, drove through the intersection and away from the police car, evidencing no interest in it at all. The State relies on State v. Santacruz-Betancourt, 969 P.2d 1040 (Or. Ct. App. 1998) cert. denied, 987 P.2d 513 (Or. 1999). There, the defendant aimed a laser beam inside a house, first at the forehead of an elderly man and then at the forehead of an elderly woman. The defendant's car was seen outside the house at the time by a person in the kitchen with the elderly couple. The trial court suppressed the stop and the appellate court reversed. According to the appellate court, the suspicion was reasonable under those circumstances. See id. at 1043.
This case is unlike Santacruz-Betancourt for two reasons, as the district court noted. First, the beam in this case was never pointed at a person, let alone a person's head and second, the fact that the vehicle moved through the light and was proceeding down the road, away from the police, is wholly inconsistent with the actions of a person attempting to point a firearm at someone else. In this situation, I think it was unreasonable for the officers to stop the car and therefore, the court's ruling should be affirmed. I am authorized to state that Justice Skoglund joins in this dissent.
Associate Justice
|