State v. Lumpkins

168 January 10, 2013 No. 3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Respondent on Review, v. FRANK LUMPKINS, JR. Petitioner on Review. (CC C082003CR; CA A141532; SC S059173) On review from the Court of Appeals.* Argued and submitted September 19, 2011. Kenneth A. Kreuscher, Portland Law Collective, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner on review. With him on the brief was Travis Eiva. Doug M. Petrina, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent on review. With him on the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General. Kendra M. Matthews, Ransom Blackman LLP, Portland, filed the brief for amicus curiae ACLU Foundation of Oregon, Inc. Before Balmer, Chief Justice, Kistler, Walters, and Linder, Justices, and Durham and De Muniz, Senior Judges, Justices pro tempore.** The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed by an equally divided court. ______________ ** Appeal from Washington County Circuit Court, Mark Gardner, Judge. 240 Or App 323, 245 P3d 703 (2010). ** Landau, Brewer, and Baldwin, JJ., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case. Cite as 353 Or 168 (2013) 169 A police officer noticed defendant’s vehicle in a neighborhood that the officer regularly patrolled. Because the vehicle looked out of place, the officer checked the vehicle’s license plate against a database maintained by the Driver and Motor Vehicles Division (DMV) of the Department of Transportation. The officer learned that registered owner’s license was suspended and stopped the vehicle. Defendant, the registered owner, was arrested for felony driving while suspended. At trial defendant moved to suppress the information obtained from the DMV database, arguing that by retrieving the information, the officer had violated Article I, sec- tions 9 and 20, of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and convicted defendant, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed by an equally divided court.