Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
State of Oregon v. Gerardo Betancourt
Date: 07-19-2025
Case Number: CC 22CR03917
Judge: Not Available
Court: Circuit Court, Marion County, Oregon
Plaintiff's Attorney: Marion County, Oregon District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Salem Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory
Description:
Salem, Oregon criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with driving a motor vehicle with a suspended license.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence resulting from the stop, contending that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle because the officer had not identified the driver before initiating the stop. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that it was reasonable for the officer to infer that the registered owner of the vehicle was driving it, and defendant was convicted of driving with a suspended license, ORS 811.182(4). On appeal, defendant acknowledged that the stop would be lawful under the controlling Court of Appeals case law, State v. Panko, 101 Or.App. 6, 788 P.2d 1026 (1990), but he contended that Panko was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that Panko was not "plainly wrong" and, thus, was binding on that court. State v. Betancourt, 332 Or.App. 671, 673 (2024) (nonprecedential memorandum decision).
An officer has reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop when the officer believes, based on specific articulable facts, that the person stopped has committed or is about to commit a specific crime or type of crime, and that belief is objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Motion to suppress denied.
* * *
Legal issue Does an officer need to confirm the driver's identity before stopping a vehicle based on the suspicion that the driver, as the registered owner, is driving with a suspended license under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution?
Headnote
CRIMINAL LAW. REASONABLE SUSPICION FOR VEHICLE STOP. The case concerns whether a police officer had reasonable suspicion under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution to stop a vehicle based on an inference that the driver was the registered owner with a suspended license, without confirming the driver's identity before the stop.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9. The court evaluated the objective reasonableness of an officer's suspicion that a vehicle's driver was the registered owner, who had a suspended license, under the Oregon Constitution.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. EVIDENCE SUPPRESSION. The defendant's appeal challenged the denial to suppress evidence obtained from a vehicle stop, asserting that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion without confirming the driver's identity prior to the stop.
Key Phrases - Reasonable suspicion - Investigatory stop - Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution - Driving while suspended - Judicial review
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence resulting from the stop, contending that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to stop his vehicle because the officer had not identified the driver before initiating the stop. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that it was reasonable for the officer to infer that the registered owner of the vehicle was driving it, and defendant was convicted of driving with a suspended license, ORS 811.182(4). On appeal, defendant acknowledged that the stop would be lawful under the controlling Court of Appeals case law, State v. Panko, 101 Or.App. 6, 788 P.2d 1026 (1990), but he contended that Panko was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The Court of Appeals disagreed, concluding that Panko was not "plainly wrong" and, thus, was binding on that court. State v. Betancourt, 332 Or.App. 671, 673 (2024) (nonprecedential memorandum decision).
An officer has reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop when the officer believes, based on specific articulable facts, that the person stopped has committed or is about to commit a specific crime or type of crime, and that belief is objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Motion to suppress denied.
* * *
Legal issue Does an officer need to confirm the driver's identity before stopping a vehicle based on the suspicion that the driver, as the registered owner, is driving with a suspended license under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution?
Headnote
CRIMINAL LAW. REASONABLE SUSPICION FOR VEHICLE STOP. The case concerns whether a police officer had reasonable suspicion under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution to stop a vehicle based on an inference that the driver was the registered owner with a suspended license, without confirming the driver's identity before the stop.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9. The court evaluated the objective reasonableness of an officer's suspicion that a vehicle's driver was the registered owner, who had a suspended license, under the Oregon Constitution.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. EVIDENCE SUPPRESSION. The defendant's appeal challenged the denial to suppress evidence obtained from a vehicle stop, asserting that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion without confirming the driver's identity prior to the stop.
Key Phrases - Reasonable suspicion - Investigatory stop - Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution - Driving while suspended - Judicial review
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of State of Oregon v. Gerardo Betancourt?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard State of Oregon v. Gerardo Betancourt?
This case was heard in Circuit Court, Marion County, Oregon, OR. The presiding judge was Not Available.
Who were the attorneys in State of Oregon v. Gerardo Betancourt?
Plaintiff's attorney: Marion County, Oregon District Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Salem Criminal Defense Law Lawyer Directory.
When was State of Oregon v. Gerardo Betancourt decided?
This case was decided on July 19, 2025.