QuickTake:

A Eugene police officer had stopped a man with a white Cannondale bicycle because a bicycle of the same color and make had been reported stolen. The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled the officer lacked "reasonable suspicion," though a criminal justice professor said the case was a “close call.”

A Eugene police officer lacked “reasonable suspicion” in recovering a stolen bicycle, the state’s appellate court said in a Dec. 31 ruling, reversing the conviction of a man for unlawfully possessing a firearm.

The defendant, Jonathan Joseph Roy Potter, argued that when an officer stopped him to inquire about a white bicycle that turned out to be stolen, it “was based on little more than a hunch,” the five-page opinion stated.

“We agree with defendant’s argument that the state failed to adduce sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that [the officer] had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant,” the Court of Appeals said.

The case highlights the “balance between preserving a defendant’s constitutional rights and allowing law enforcement to conduct effective investigations,” Esther Nir, a criminal justice professor at New Jersey City University, said in a phone interview.

Patrol stop of Potter

While on an evening patrol in November 2022, the Eugene officer spotted Potter, along with another person, outside Potter’s apartment with two bicycles, one of which was a white Cannondale. That same color and make of bicycle had previously been reported stolen.

The officer approached Potter and asked to see the serial number of the white Cannondale. The serial number matched that of the bicycle reported stolen. The officer left with the white Cannondale but, before leaving, asked for Potter’s name and birthdate.

Later that evening, the officer learned of a warrant for Potter’s arrest. While arresting Potter at a different location, the officer reported finding a loaded firearm on him, leading to the weapons charge.

Potter later pleaded guilty to unlawfully possessing a firearm, and in April 2023 he was sentenced to 24 months of probation, according to court records.

Potter’s appeal hinged on law requiring a police officer to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime before initiating a “criminal investigative stop,” the ruling stated.

The ruling refers to an “Officer Cardwell” of Eugene police, as the one who made the stop.

“Thus, the narrow issue on appeal is whether Cardwell’s subjective belief was objectively reasonable, and, consequently, whether the stop was lawful,” the ruling stated. Because the weapons charge was set in motion by Cardwell stopping Potter about the stolen bicycle, the court had to decide whether the stop was reasonable.

Cardwell had spotted Potter with the white Cannondale, which matched the description of a bicycle that appeared on a daily list of stolen bicycles worth more than $500, the opinion states.

Cardwell is described as studying such “hot sheets” more than other officers, and the ruling notes that she “saw another expensive bicycle left outside defendant’s apartment unattended which she testified is abnormal and drew her attention to defendant’s apartment in the first place.”

The stop took place a few blocks from the University of Oregon campus, where the bicycle had been stolen. The court’s ruling notes “there is evidence in the record that Eugene has a lot of bike theft.” In the first six months of last year, Eugene police tallied 231 stolen bicycle reports. 

But in siding with Potter, the Court of Appeals pointed to a lack of testimony about how the bicycle was described on the “hot sheet,” with the ruling pointing to a lack of evidence that the stolen bicycle had other identifying characteristics.

“Simply put, the constitution demands more; officers could not stop all people possessing white Cannondale bicycles in the area just because one was reported as missing and listed on the hot sheet,” the ruling stated.

The Court of Appeals ruling reverses Potter’s conviction and sends the case back to circuit court. It’s unclear what will happen next.

“We will need to evaluate the court’s decision and determine whether there is a basis to continue prosecution. Based on my preliminary read of the opinion, we may have to dismiss the case,” Lane County District Attorney Christopher Parosa said in an email.

Melinda McLaughlin, a Eugene police spokesperson, said Cardwell no longer worked for Eugene police. McLaughlin said the police department generally does not comment on litigation.

Francis Gieringer, a deputy public defender, argued the case on behalf of Potter, with Ernest Lannet, chief defender for the Oregon Public Defense Commission’s Criminal Appellate Section, contributing to the legal brief submitted as part of the appeal.

The case was decided by Oregon Court of Appeals Judge Steven Powers and Judge Ramón Pagán, along with Rex Armstrong, a retired former Court of Appeals judge with the title of senior judge. Powers wrote the opinion.

Motions to suppress evidence

Nir, formerly a prosecutor in New York, said motions to suppress evidence are common. She’s done research on suppression motions filed in Newark, New Jersey, after a federal Department of Justice investigation into allegations of police misconduct.

The probe resulted in a consent decree as a way to ensure officers in Newark did not violate the constitutional rights of those stopped by police. The consent decree ended last year.

“It’s less common for a suppression motion to be granted then denied. But it’s taken on a case-by-case basis,” Nir said.

A police stop “can’t just be based simply on a hunch. It has to be based on specific and articulable facts that support that suspicion,” Nir said, adding, “You look at the totality of the circumstances, so you have to basically look at the whole picture that the officer had.”

The court’s ruling stated the recovered bicycle’s serial numbers matched that of the bicycle reported stolen. But the fact that the bicycle spotted by Cardwell was, in fact, stolen, is irrelevant to the court’s analysis of the “reasonable suspicion” standard, Nir said.

“It’s all designed to deter unlawful police conduct,” Nir said. “So whether the officer was right or wrong at the end of the day really doesn’t matter.”

Reading about the evidence presented on behalf of the Eugene officer, however, Nir said it appeared to be a “close call” that “could have been decided differently in a different court.”

“Clearly, the decision was focusing on what we didn’t know. What didn’t we know? There were no specific identifiers on the bike. There were no dents, there was no ribbon tied around anything,” Nir said, explaining that nothing described as seen by Cardwell appeared to match the specific bicycle reported as stolen.

Nir said while the officer had some reasons for making a stop, “the court just felt that it was too general, and it wasn’t enough to actually meet the standard.”