State v. Betancourt ( 2024 )

No. 336 May 22, 2024 671
This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE
STATE OF OREGON
STATE OF OREGON,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
GERARDO BETANCOURT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Polk County Circuit Court
22CR03917; A179535
Matthew L. Tracey, Judge pro tempore.
Submitted April 29, 2024.
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and James Brewer, Deputy Public Defender, Office
of Public Defense Services, filed the briefs for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Leigh A. Salmon, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Shorr, Presiding Judge, Mooney, Judge, and Pagán,
Judge.
SHORR, P. J.
Affirmed.
672 State v. Betancourt
SHORR, P. J.
Defendant appeals following his conditional plea
of guilty to the misdemeanor crime of driving while sus-
pended. As part of his conditional plea, defendant reserved
the right to challenge the trial court’s ruling denying his
motion to suppress. See ORS 135.335(3) (providing for con-
ditional pleas that reserve the right to appeal an adverse
ruling in the trial court). We conclude that the trial court
did not err in denying that motion and, therefore, affirm.
We start with the uncontested facts. An officer was
driving in his patrol car when he observed a black Chevy
Silverado from behind. The officer checked that vehicle’s
license plates through a computer in his patrol car. The
Department of Motor Vehicle Records showed that the vehi-
cle had one registered owner and that the owner had a sus-
pended driver’s license. The officer also retrieved a photo-
graph of the owner. The officer was not able to immediately
pull alongside defendant’s vehicle because both vehicles were
then traveling on a single-lane road. The officer initiated
a traffic stop and pulled over defendant’s vehicle without
having first observed who was driving that vehicle. After
pulling the vehicle over, the officer confirmed that defendant
was both the registered owner of the vehicle and the driver.
The officer cited defendant for driving while suspended.
Defendant moved to suppress, arguing that, at the
time the officer initiated the stop of the vehicle, the officer
lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that the owner of the
vehicle, who had a suspended license, was also its driver.
Therefore, defendant contended, the stop violated Article I,
section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.1 The officer testified at
the suppression hearing that, based on his experience and
training, the registered owner of the vehicle is usually also
the driver of the vehicle. The trial court denied the motion
to suppress, concluding that the officer had reasonable sus-
picion to initiate the stop even if the officer had not, before
the stop, determined whether the photograph of the vehicle’s
owner matched its driver.
1
Article I, section 9, provides in relevant part that “[n]o law shall violate the
right of the people to be secure * * * against unreasonable search, or seizure.”
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 332 Or App 671 (2024) 673
Defendant raises the same argument that he raised
in the trial court, contending that the officer lacked reason-
able suspicion that defendant was driving while suspended.
Defendant acknowledges that we have previously concluded
under Oregon law that it was “reasonable for [an] officer to
suspect that the registered owner of the vehicle is driving
it. If he knows that the owner is suspended, he may make
a stop * * * unless other circumstances put him on notice
that the driver is not the vehicle’s owner.” State v. Panko,
101 Or App 6, 9, 788 P2d 1026 (1990) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Defendant contends, however, that Panko
was plainly wrong. Although the issue may be one about
which reasonable minds may disagree, we cannot conclude
that Panko is plainly wrong, which is a “rigorous standard
grounded in presumptive fidelity to stare decisis.” State v.
Civil, 283 Or App 395, 406, 388 P3d 1185 (2017).2 Because
we conclude that Panko was not plainly wrong and we are
bound by its holding, we affirm. See also Kansas v. Glover,
589 US 376, 385-86, 140 S Ct 1183, 206 L Ed 2d 412 (2020)
(holding under the United States Constitution that an officer
had reasonable suspicion, based in part on inferences from
common sense, to pull over a car whose registered owner had
a revoked license without having first confirmed that the
driver was the owner); but see id. at 391-92 (Sotomayor, J.,
dissenting).
Affirmed.
2
“Mere disagreement, however, is not—and cannot be—a sufficient justifi-
cation for overruling precedent. Rather, the prudential principles that undergird
stare decisis, as well as practical institutional considerations, require more. Much
more.” Civil, 283 Or App at 415.