Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Another paper calls Woodburn "little Mexico"

Oregon's 'Little Mexico' serves as example of diversity
The city is one of few places in Oregon where the white population is the minority, and the community has dealt with rapidly changing demographics in recent years. At least one University researcher hopes to learn something from the unique situation.

I'm sure he'll ask questions about crime rate, employment rate, median income, percentage of people at the public trough...

Nelson said Woodburn is embracing its Mexican population and is sometimes called Oregon's "Little Mexico."

"The city seems to be embracing its Mexican identity openly and very deeply now," Nelson said.

The city is also home to many Mexican celebrations, Nelson said.

Note that they don't say "hispanic population" it's "Mexican population." In my household whites are in the minority but we celebrate the 4th of July, not the Day of the Dead. It just boggles my mind why we would want to import that culture. 20 million illegal aliens can't be wrong: America is the better country, let's celebrate that.


Moondoggie said...


If Im correct in my guessing, there's a couple of regular posters here from Woodburn.

It is a great little family town. Moved here four years ago. Haven't regreted the decision one iota. Although our friends "warned" us about all the Mexicans. We told them we really wanted to move to Mt. Angel but there was just to many G.D. Germans. You should have seen the look on their faces! LOL. It was a fun comeback and we used it often in those house-hunting days.

Very little crime compared to other Oregon towns. Last year there was one, maybe two violent crimes but I don't think even one murder. This year there have been a couple violent crimes and one murder, but Police are on it, per usual.

Overwhelming majority of good, hardworking people. Caring and active civic community. Happy kids. Nellie Muir elementary scored 100% (not a typo) on last year's NCLB benchmarks. High School struggling but making huge changes and progress too.

Lovely friends, excellent churches, excellent service at local businesses, new business coming in to town all the time, Urban Renewal grant slowly transforming downtown...the list goes on.

What's not to love about Woodburn?
Those who joke and thumb their noses about Woodburn have an obvious agenda, and we all know what that is.

Moondoggie said...

Oh...and the overwhelming majority of hispanics here ARE Mexican and the overwhelming majority of them are working. Woodburn is the epicenter of Oregon's nursery industry. I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the majority (likely slim, but majority) of Mexicans are here legally. Many, many of Woodburn's Mexican families go WAY WAY WAY back.

In addition, we have an excellent annual 4th of July celebration in Woodburn. Very "Americana." We also have an annual Beagle convention that is regionally famous. In addition to the annual Fiesta Mexicana (the biggest Mexican festival in the PNW), we host an annual Firehouse BBQ Cookoff where firefighters from around PNW compete. And of course, one of Oregon's biggest tourist draws (aside from the Woodburn Company Stores) which is the annual Wooden Shoe Tulip Festival is going on as we speak.

Would love for you to come to ANY of these celebrations Daniel. I see you've been recently invited but stood them up. Bring your camera, by all means. Nice Mexican Lady is waiting for you, lol...

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

I am thinking back to all the times that a Miglavian has howled because he was branded a nativist, and now I read Daniel's post today, and I wonder why he simply doesn't wear a T-shirt emblazoned with "NATIVIST AND PROUD OF IT."

This is the problem I have with Miglavians -- you nuts embrace a viewpoint, and then you balk when that viewpoint is identified by name. You wanna be a bigot? Fine. Then STAND UP AND SAY IT!!! Show some fucking backbone, or get off the playing field.

Read Miglavs' post carefully. "Illegal aliens" aren't even mentioned until the last sentence -- and then, the unspoken subtext that Miglavs believes is a truism is that ALL Latinos and Hispanics, in Woodburn and everywhere else, are "illegal aliens." Talk about boggling the mind.

But no, the problem, according to the nativist who is not a nativist and the bigot who is not a bigot is:

1) "The white population is the minority."
2) "The community has dealt with rapidly changing demographics."
3) "Embracing its Mexican identity openly."
4) Woodburn is "home to many Mexican celebrations."
5) "It just boggles my mind why we would want to import that culture."
6) "America is the better country."

And now, a word from the American Heritage Dictionary:

NATIVISM: A sociopolitical policy, especially in the United States in the 19th century, favoring the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants. 2. The reestablishment or perpetuation of native cultural traits, especially in opposition to acculturation.

'Nuff said.

Anonymous said...

"It just boggles my mind why we would want to import that culture."

Miglavs - did you read the article? The gist of it seemed to be focused on integrating Hispanics into the municipal decision-making apparatus. Sounds very ASSIMILATORY to me.

It just boggles my mind that you decry being called a racist when all you do is rail against Mexican culture and assume that all Mexicans are illegal immigrants. What is that if not ethnocentrism?

Also, as for criminals: takes one to know one, I guess.

Miglavs gets amnesty. Convicted of gang-banging, drug dealing and weapons charges.

No jail time served.

FILED: May 20, 2004



Respondent on Review,



Petitioner on Review.

(CC C000009CR, C000111CR; CA A111137 (Control), A111138; SC S50279)

On review from the Court of Appeals.*

Argued and submitted March 3, 2004.

Garrett A. Richardson, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner on review.

Jonathan H. Fussner, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. Julie A. Smith, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief. With her on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Mary H. Williams, Solicitor General.

Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Riggs, De Muniz, and Balmer, Justices.**


The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.

*Appeal from Washington County Circuit Court, Timothy P. Alexander, Judge. 186 Or App 420, 63 P3d 1202 (2003).

**Kistler, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.


The issue in this criminal case is whether a police officer lawfully engaged in a precautionary patdown (1) of defendant in accordance with the officer safety rule set out in State v. Bates, 304 Or 519, 747 P2d 991 (1987). Because there were multiple charges against defendant arising out of separate police patdowns and a subsequent search of defendant's residence, we first set out the procedural history in some detail.

Defendant was charged with two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm based on evidence uncovered during a patdown (the patdown at issue here) conducted in August 1999. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence that the police discovered during that patdown. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress that evidence.

The same indictment also charged defendant with two other counts of unlawful possession of a firearm as a result of evidence uncovered in a patdown that the police conducted in September 1999. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of that patdown, and the trial court granted that motion.

Finally, the police executed a search warrant at defendant's residence in December 1999 and seized evidence that led to defendant being charged separately with seven other weapon and drug-related crimes. Defendant moved to suppress that evidence as well, and the trial court denied that motion.

The court consolidated all charges and tried them at the same time. Defendant ultimately was convicted of two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm seized as a result of the August patdown and three counts of unlawful possession of a firearm seized during the December search of defendant's residence.

Defendant appealed, contending that the police had relied on the evidence that they discovered during the August patdown to obtain the search warrant that led to the discovery of the evidence seized during the December search of defendant's residence. A divided en banc Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings denying defendant's motions to suppress evidence discovered during the August patdown and the December search of his residence. State v. Miglavs, 186 Or App 420, 63 P3d 1202 (2003). We allowed defendant's petition for review. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the August patdown was lawful and, therefore, affirm the trial court judgment and the decision of the Court of Appeals.

We take the following facts from the Court of Appeals majority opinion:

"Just after midnight in August 1999, Officer Brown, who was on patrol alone, saw defendant and another man standing outside a car, talking to a woman seated in the car, in the parking lot of an apartment complex in Beaverton. They were below an apartment overhang, which caused the area to be fairly dark. Because Brown suspected that all three individuals were under 18 years of age and possibly violating curfew, she approached the group. On approaching, she saw alcohol in the car. She asked for identification so that she could determine if any alcohol-related or curfew violations may have occurred. Defendant and the woman in the car gave Brown their identification, which she kept while she ran a records check on them. The other male said that he was 17 years old and gave his name and date of birth in lieu of other identification. The dispatcher reported that defendant was a possible runaway, but defendant told the officer that he had recently turned 18. He also told the officer that he lived in the apartment complex, even though his identification listed a different address. He was unwilling to tell the officer in which apartment he resided.

"Because she was on patrol alone, Brown called for backup while she was checking the ages and identities of the three individuals. Two backup officers arrived within a couple of minutes. By the time they arrived, Brown had determined that the driver of the car was 21 years old and therefore lawfully in possession of alcohol. She also had determined that defendant was 18 years old and therefore not violating curfew. Brown returned defendant's and the driver's identification to them, making no overture to cite or hold them. They were then free to go, but Brown did not expressly tell them that. They remained while Brown continued her investigation of the 17-year-old for a possible curfew violation.

"At that point, Brown was concerned for her personal safety and that of the backup officers. Defendant and his male companion were wearing distinctive clothing commonly associated with a gang called the '18th Street' gang. Typical of that gang, defendant had a shaved head and was wearing baggy tan pants and a baggy black shirt with the term '18th Street' printed on the back in large white letters. Defendant's companion also was wearing baggy gang-style clothes and had a three-dot tattoo under his eye that is associated with gang membership. The baggy style of the clothing concerned Brown because, in addition to signaling gang affiliation, the clothing permitted easy concealment of a weapon. Within the preceding year, Brown had come into contact with a similarly attired gang member in the parking lot of the same apartment complex who, on a patdown search, was found to have a weapon concealed in his waistband under his baggy clothing. Also, based on her training and experience more generally, Brown knew that members of the 18th Street gang commonly carry weapons--in particular, guns.

"One of the backup officers, Officer Cockreham, shared Brown's safety concerns. His concerns arose because of defendant's 18th Street gang-affiliated clothing, as well as the way in which defendant's shirt was draped over his waist. Cockreham had personally removed weapons from several 18th Street gang members in the same general area (i.e., along Allen Boulevard between Hall and King); one such encounter occurred 'just previously to this incident' and the weapon he found on the gang member was a gun. Brown directed Cockreham to patdown defendant for weapons. On doing so, Cockreham found a gun concealed in the waistband of defendant's pants."

186 Or App at 422-24 (footnote omitted).

In affirming the trial court's rulings denying defendant's motion to suppress the gun, the Court of Appeals majority relied on this court's earlier decision in Bates. There, this court held that

"Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, does not forbid an officer to take reasonable steps to protect himself or others if, during the course of a lawful encounter with a citizen, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts, that the citizen might pose an immediate threat of serious physical injury to the officer or to others then present."

Id. at 524. The Court of Appeals majority began its analysis by characterizing the basis for the officers' particularized suspicion of defendant:

"The officers' safety concerns here were not stereotypical in the sense that they derived only from a generalized and oversimplified view of how all members of a broad group behave in all circumstances. Rather, Brown and Cockreham had particular training in and experience with members of a particular gang--the 18th Street gang--and its local activities. The officers, based on training and experience relating to that particular gang, knew that its local members commonly carried concealed weapons. They knew, moreover, that guns were often the weapon of choice for members of the 18th Street gang."

Miglavs, 186 Or App at 427 (emphasis in original). The court concluded that several factors contributed to the officers' reasonable fear for their safety:

"On whole, then, we have this: defendant was a likely member of not just an urban gang but of a particular gang known to operate in the area--the 18th Street gang--whose local members commonly carry guns; he was wearing clothes that could have concealed a gun; the officers had both longer-term and very recent experience with members of the 18th Street gang in the area who were armed with concealed weapons; it was late; it was dark; and defendant chose to protract the encounter with the officers. The totality of what the officers knew and the circumstances with which they were confronted went beyond a generalized understanding of the practices of urban gangs and encompassed a specific and particularized reality as to defendant and the 18th Street gang, of which defendant was a likely member."

Id. at 428. The court thus affirmed defendant's convictions.

Judge Haselton agreed with the majority, but wrote separately to clarify that the court's decision did "not authorize 'officer safety' searches based solely on a citizen's 'suspicious' appearance or possible association with a potentially dangerous group." Id. at 435 (Haselton, J., concurring). He further explained that "our holding does not write a blank check for 'officer safety' patdowns resulting from officer-initiated contacts with young men or women wearing 'gang style' clothing." Id. (Haselton, J., concurring).

Judge Edmonds and Judge Armstrong dissented in separate opinions. Judge Edmonds asserted that the constitutional right to associate requires that the constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures apply equally to "those who belong to gangs, wear baggy gang-related clothing, or identify with groups known to be violent" as they do to others. Id. (Edmonds, J., dissenting). He opined that defendant's decision to remain at the scene after Brown concluded her investigation of him was the only fact that could have contributed to her concern that defendant might pose an immediate threat to her safety or that of others. Id. at 436 (Edmonds, J., dissenting). But that fact, Judge Edmonds asserted, was of little significance in light of defendant's cooperative attitude and the fact that Brown did not tell him that he was free to leave. Id. (Edmonds, J., dissenting). Judge Edmonds further posited that Brown's failure to direct defendant to leave indicated that she did not perceive defendant to be a greater threat at the end of the investigation than she had at the beginning. Id. (Edmonds, J., dissenting). According to Judge Edmonds, the majority's decision would permit the police to patdown "any person dressed in gang attire and present in a mall or other public place * * * even in the absence of individualized suspicion[,]" contrary to Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. (2) Id. at 436-37 (Edmonds, J., dissenting).

Judge Armstrong similarly believed that the officers' knowledge that defendant was a member of the 18th Street gang, and their prior experiences with that gang, were not "sufficient to give the officers a reasonable basis to believe that defendant was a member of the 18th Street gang who, because of that membership, was reasonably likely to be carrying a gun." Id. at 439 (Armstrong, J., dissenting). He also could not discern a difference between the officers' knowledge that defendant was a member of a particular gang that was known to carry guns and their knowledge that members of a particular type of gang carry guns. Id. at 440 (Armstrong, J., dissenting). "In either case" Judge Armstrong observed, "the state seeks to rely on a syllogism that people of a particular group often carry weapons, that the defendant appears to be a member of that group, and that it is therefore reasonable to suspect that the defendant is carrying a weapon." Id. (Armstrong, J., dissenting). He noted further, as did Judge Edmonds, that Brown did not have a reason to fear for her safety because defendant was cooperative and because Brown had not waited for the backup officers to arrive to conduct her investigation of the three individuals. Id. at 440-41 (Armstrong, J., dissenting). In Judge Armstrong's view, defendant's failure to leave when Brown returned defendant's identification was of no significance because Brown should have understood that defendant merely wished to resume his encounter with his friends. Id. at 441-42 (Armstrong, J., dissenting).

In this court, defendant relies on the dissenting opinions by Judge Edmonds and Judge Armstrong and argues that the Court of Appeals majority erred in its application of the Bates rule because Brown did not have a particularized suspicion that defendant was armed and might pose a threat to the officers' safety. He observes that, when Brown had concluded her investigation of defendant, she did not tell him that he was free to leave, from which he argues that his failure to leave should not have contributed to Brown's safety concerns. He notes further that he was "cooperative and unthreatening" and, thus, should not have made the officers feel that he presented an immediate risk to their safety.

The state responds that this court needs to decide only whether "the officers' belief that defendant might be armed and dangerous [was] a reasonable one." In its view, "the officers reasonably believed that this defendant might pose an immediate threat primarily because he had expressly affiliated himself with a particular gang, the local members of which operate in the immediate vicinity and, in the officers' training and experience, often are armed." Further, the state argues, "[t]hat suspicion was sufficiently particularized because it was based on characteristics shared by a narrow and well-defined category of persons with whom the officers had specific experiences and about whom the officers had received training." For the reasons that follow, we agree with the state.

We begin with a review of Bates. In that case, a City of Eugene police officer stopped the defendant for "'excessive vehicle emissions'" at 4:40 a.m. Id. at 521. The stop occurred in a "'high crime'" area and the officer called for assistance. Id. Two officers approached the defendant's vehicle and one officer asked for the defendant's driver license. Id. The officers noticed that there was a "television and a videocassette recorder [VCR]" on the back seat of the defendant's vehicle. Id. One officer also noticed "an object on the floorboard between [the] defendant's feet." Id. The other officer also took note of the object and "'asked [the defendant] if he would reach down and very cautiously pull that item from between his feet," so that the officer could see what it was. Id. The defendant refused and instead "reached under the seat and remained in that position" while the officer repeatedly asked him to pull the item into plain view. Id. The officer then pulled his gun and ordered the defendant to step out of the car. Id. The officer then obtained the bag from under the seat, felt something hard inside, opened it, and discovered "several rounds of live ammunition, drugs, and drug paraphernalia." Id. at 522.

The court began its analysis by noting the state's reliance on the Supreme Court's analysis of officer safety searches in Michigan v. Long, 463 US 1032, 103 S Ct 3469, 77 L Ed 2d 1201 (1983), and this court's own previous analysis in State v. Riley, 240 Or 521, 402 P2d 741 (1965), in which the court had acknowledged that "police officers are entitled to take steps reasonably necessary to their safety." Bates, 304 Or at 523. The court then held, as set out above, that Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution "does not forbid an officer to take reasonable steps to protect himself or others if, during the course of a lawful encounter with a citizen, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion" that the suspect "might pose" a danger to the officer or others. Id. at 524. The court explained that

"it is not [this court's] function to uncharitably second-guess an officer's judgment. A police officer in the field frequently must make life-or-death decisions in a matter of seconds. There may be little or no time in which to weigh the magnitude of a potential safety risk against the intrusiveness of protective measures. An officer must be allowed considerable latitude to take safety precautions in such situations. Our inquiry therefore is limited to whether the precautions taken were reasonable under the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time that the decision was made."

Id. at 524-25 (emphasis added). See also State v. Amaya, __ Or ___, ___ P3d ___ (April 29, 2004) (same).

The Bates court concluded, however, that the officers had exceeded the permissible bounds of the rule. Id. at 525-26. It reached that result by assessing the significance of each factor that the officer identified as contributing to his conclusion that the defendant posed an immediate threat. Id. The officer testified that the vehicle's out-of-state license plates, the time of day, the high crime area, the defendant's appearance, the fact that there was a television and a VCR on the back seat of the defendant's vehicle, and the fact that the defendant did not comply with the officer's instruction to pull into plain view the item that he could not see fully, all contributed to his concern about the defendant's possible dangerousness. Id. at 525.

This court, however, concluded that none of the identified factors, even when considered collectively, supported a reasonable suspicion that the defendant posed an immediate threat to the officers' safety. The court observed that the suspicions of the officer who ordered the defendant out of the car

"may have been an excellent guess–-the kind resulting from a sixth sense that many officers develop over the years. But, again, there is no objective quality to them that entitles them to any weight, either individually or collectively, in the constitutional calculus. Neither the hour nor the 'high crime' nature of the area tells us whether this defendant is likely to be a criminal, unless there is some reason to think that everyone driving in that particular area at that time of night is up to no good[.]"

Id. at 526 (emphasis in original). As in Bates, our inquiry in this case is limited to whether the precautionary patdown was reasonable under the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at that time.

Here, the officers testified that the following factors contributed to their determination that defendant might pose an immediate threat to their safety: (1) defendant "was wearing bagg[y] tan pants and a black bagg[y] shirt that had '18th' written on the back of the shirt in large white letters[,]" (3) which the officers associated with the attire of 18th Street gang members; (2) the young man with defendant also had a gang-related tattoo consisting of three dots in the shape of a triangle that Officer Brown knew meant "'[m]i vida loca'" or "'my crazy life' in English" and his shirt also had the number 18 on it; (3) both defendant and the man with him were wearing, "untucked[,]" "extremely bagg[y clothing that] could easily conceal weapons"; (4) the officers knew that 18th Street gang members operated in the vicinity of the encounter and that they carried guns; (5) Officer Cockreham personally removed weapons from several 18th Street gang members and had, just previously to this incident, had removed a gun from an 18th Street gang member; and (6) neither defendant nor the woman in the car chose to leave after Brown returned their identification.

Before evaluating the factors described above, we first address defendant's argument that his cooperative attitude and lack of suspicious behavior was sufficient to dispel any concerns that the officers had for their safety. Defendant is correct that those circumstances must be considered in the overall assessment of the reasonableness of the officers' decision to engage in the patdown. However, defendant's attitude and demeanor are just two circumstances that the officers and, ultimately, this court must consider in determining whether the totality of the circumstances justified the decision to engage in a precautionary patdown. See State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66, 83, 854 P2d 421 (1993) ("totality of the circumstances" are considered in determining whether officer's suspicion was reasonable). As we now explain, those countervailing circumstances, considered in light of the totality of the circumstances, are not sufficient to dispel the reasonableness of the officers' particularized suspicion that defendant might have posed a danger to their safety.

Under Bates, a limited precautionary patdown is authorized under Article I, section 9, only when the initial contact between the police and the individual is lawful. Here, defendant concedes that Brown was engaged in a lawful contact with defendant. Brown had approached the vehicle to investigate possible curfew, and later, alcohol violations. She requested defendant's identification and, upon concluding her investigation, promptly returned defendant's identification to him. In other words, as noted previously, the police contact was not initiated solely (or at all) because defendant and his companion were wearing gang attire.

Next, Bates requires an evaluation whether the factors that the officers claim supported their belief that defendant might pose an immediate threat to their safety are sufficiently particularized to defendant as required under Article I, section 9. This court repeatedly has explained that a person's appearance alone never can support a reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity. See State v. Valdez, 277 Or 621, 628, 561 P2d 1006 (1977) (explaining that "shined shoes, sharp clothes, neat 'Afro' haircuts and people who stand and stare at officers" cannot say much about those people engaging in criminal activity); Bates, 304 Or at 525 (explaining that fact that defendant was "an 'Indian' with long hair and beard" wearing black leather jacket could not support reasonable suspicion to believe that he was dangerous). A police officer's suspicion must be particularized to the individual based on the individual's own conduct. State v. Stanley, 325 Or 239, 245-46, 935 P2d 1202 (1997); Bates, 304 Or at 525; Valdez, 277 Or at 628. Regardless of the officers' belief that gang members wear baggy clothing, that type of clothing alone could not support a reasonable suspicion that defendant posed a risk to the officers' safety. That is, nothing about such attire alone could tell the officers anything about defendant, except that he liked to wear baggy clothing. Nevertheless, a particular style of attire may be a circumstance that, when considered in the overall context or totality of the circumstances of a police-citizen contact, contributes to the reasonableness of an officer's safety assessment.

Similarly, clothing that announces a gang affiliation does not, by itself, give rise to the kind of individualized suspicion of a safety threat required under Article I, section 9. However, officers reasonably may draw inferences about human behavior from their training and experience. See Stanley, 325 Or at 246-46 (in officer's experience, people who commit robberies often are armed); Ehly, 317 Or at 80-81 (in officer's experience, drug users often are armed). In this instance, the officers knew from training and recent personal experience that the gang identified on defendant's shirt operated in the immediate vicinity of the contact and that members of that gang carried weapons. Furthermore, one of the officers recently had removed a gun from one of the members of that gang. Under those circumstances, the officers' safety concerns regarding defendant were not based solely on generalized or stereotypical information about gang behavior but, instead, were sufficiently particularized, based on specific training about and recent personal experience with a narrowly identified group, viz., members of the local gang to which defendant and his male companion proclaimed their allegiance and which operated in the area where the officers encountered defendant.

Finally, in addition to defendant's self-proclaimed gang membership and the officers' training and recent experience with other gang members, there are other factors that contribute to the reasonableness of the officers' safety concerns. First, the contact with defendant and his two companions occurred at a late hour in a darkened area in the general vicinity where one of the officers recently had encountered armed members of the 18th Street gang. Defendant was uncooperative during the initial investigation when he refused to reveal the location of his residence in the apartment complex. See Amaya, ___ Or at ___ (refusal to leave purse-like bag in vehicle when requested to do so was one factor that heightened officer's safety concern).

Second, although defendant was free to move from the immediate area after his identification was returned to him, he chose to remain in the area near where the police were conducting an ongoing investigation. When defendant remained in that close proximity to the officers, the officers' safety concerns reasonably were heightened because the officers needed to focus their attention on defendant's companion and were not able to watch defendant as closely as they could before that time. As this court explained in Bates:

"A police officer in the field frequently must make life-or-death decisions in a matter of seconds. There may be little or no time in which to weigh the magnitude of a potential safety risk against the intrusiveness of protective measures. An officer must be allowed considerable latitude to take safety precautions in such situations."

Bates, 304 Or at 524 (emphasis added).

Here, the combination of factors that the officers identified were sufficient to give rise to a reasonable and individualized suspicion that defendant might have posed a safety threat to them. That individualized suspicion justified the limited precautionary patdown of defendant that occurred in this case and did not violate defendant's protection against unreasonable search and seizure under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.

The decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court are affirmed.


1. Our use of the term "patdown" is intended to mean "an external patting of a person's outer clothing," as described in ORS 131.605(3).

Return to previous location.


2. Judge Edmond's concern notwithstanding, this case is not about whether Article I, section 9, would allow the police to patdown a known gang member in a public place for the sole reason of performing a patdown for weapons. Among other differences, the patdown in this case occurred in the context of a lawful police investigation and took place at night in the general area where one of the officers had recently encountered an armed member of the same gang.

Return to previous location.


3. Officer Cockreham testified that defendant's shirt "actually said '18th Street' on it[.]"

Return to previous location.

Anonymous said...

anon 9:34
wow your slipping you getting lazy!
Your not the firs post today whats up ! I still think you need to get a life !!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

The city is one of few places in Oregon where the white population is the minority, and the community has dealt with rapidly changing demographics in recent years.


Anonymous said...


Say What? said...

The land is better. Government better. But Culture? American Culture? The American, MTV Murderous, Druggy, Porno Slut Culture? Don't think so.

Good Ol' American Culture said...

Good Old American Culture. Daniel should know this culture well belonging in a gang.

Anonymous said...

So bars on the windows, Foreign flags and language is a "Culture"?
And all those Apartments going up on I-5, wooh hoo thats gonna look like shit in a couple of years too.
If you saw how the Farmworker housing in Salem-Colonial Libertaad is already trashed, you would understand(Volunteers from the College have already gone there to replace doors, windows, paint, in brand new buildings).
Woodburn also has the highest rate of non compliance of No Child Left Behind Schools because their is limited emphasis on learning English. Why? Gov't hands out everything in Spanish anyhow.

Woodburn is also a Socialist town now with Salud Medical and all kinds of Tax payer funded Handouts including brand new Farmworker housing, for people that have a Job,(Not for Veterans or Disabled or Terminally Ill, people that can't work) paid also buy us taxpayers, NOT the Farmers.

Not to worry because the No-Match letters to Employers are going out and the Wall is being built and the SAVE Act will pass and the ACLU challenges in AZ. & OK. have failed and many Illegals will have to leave and free up the jobs, housing & benefits for truly deserving Americans that pay for it.

But you Moonbats keep on it just for fun I guess 'cause your ship is going down, as it should.

Little Mexico? No little Turd World Town is more like it.

Hey Moonbatdogger, Do you walk in downtown at night? Do you go in the Bars? Would you let your Teen Daughter walk around there at night? Do you speak Spanish or just avoid any conversation with people? If you were honest, you would say NO and realize we don't need that "Culture" here anymore than we need East L.A. or Toilet Tucson to move here, as it is.

Nativist? Judge a Country by how many want in vs. want out = East Germany-Communism- people wanted out, Mexico-corrupt-socialism, people want out.
America=everybody wants in.
Yeah I love this country more than any other and I have been to many others dumb ass wackos.

Anonymous said...

This is Good for the economy?

CBS News -- April 7
Illegal Immigrant Births - At Your Expense
It was 5 a.m. and CBS News national correspondent Byron Pitts is with a woman who is nine months pregnant. She's rushed to a south Texas hospital to undergo a C-section - a $4,700 medical procedure that won't cost her a dime. She qualifies for emergency Medicaid.
She gave birth to a healthy, 8 1/2 pound baby boy - born in America. His Mexican mother gave him an American name: Eliot.
Eliot is one of an estimated 300,000 children of illegal immigrants born in the United States every year, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

Anonymous said...

Actually the Mexicans are the "Nativists" and are Intolerant of Free speech and will KILL you, even a Teenager, for speaking about Illegal immigration.

Why would you Moonbats want more intolerant nativist racists from Mexico to come here?

KLTV -- Tyler, Texas Video Included
Teen girl allegedly attacked by Hispanics for opposing illegal immigration
Melanie Bowers, 13, and her parents walked into Athens High School Monday afternoon to talk to campus police. They were hoping to get some answers. -- "It never should have happened in the first place. The whole assignment was a silly assignment and they should have contacted us immediately after it happened," said J.R. Bowers, Melanie's father...

Anonymous said...

FBI says; Most Gangs including the World's Most dangerous-MS-13 are Illegal Aliens, dealing drugs and KILLING Black people for the color of their skin.
But hey thats their "Culture"!

Moondoggie said...

Anon 504:

I wouldnt let my teenage daughter WALK ANYWHERE ALONE AT NIGHT, not even Lake Oswego. I do speak Spanish and I have a couple of watering holes I go to in Woodburn, but I generally don't frequent bars so I don't know what your point is regarding bars. Two of our favorite restaurants are in old town Woodburn and we go there often at night and without incident. I have never had a problem living here. Not to discount others who may have been victims of property or other crime in Woodburn, but we have not had any negative experiences whatsoever in nearly 5 years.

Housing for migrant farm workers has been in place since late 90s. Nuevo Amancer is clean, attractive housing that is NOT FREE. Residents pay rent. It is not trashed. It is well maintained and safe. Drive by and check it out for yourself. It's on the main drag on Newberg Hwy.

Salud Medical is free to only the poorest, who must qualify with proof of income. The rest pay on a sliding scale. If they don't pay, they can't visit again. My wife worked there for a time as a temp when we first moved there.

Schools ARE meeting NCLB and scores are improving year over year, significantly. Two of my children attend Nellie Muir Elementary and if you would have read my earlier post, Nellie's NCLB benchmark tests rcvd a score of 100%. I will be happy to send you a link where you can verify this.

Any more lies?

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

The immigrants from the past came from mostly first world countries. Mexico is third world, need I give another reason why we should deport them and put a 100 ft wall across the southern desert???

Oh yeah, first story I came across after visiting this site, funny huh??


Anonymous said...

Hello I just entered before I have to leave to the airport, it's been very nice to meet you, if you want here is the site I told you about where I type some stuff and make good money (I work from home): here it is

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:19 wrote:

"wow your slipping you getting lazy! Your not the firs post today whats up ! I still think you need to get a life !!!!!!!!!!!!"

Is there some kind of unwritten rule or law which states that if a person adheres to a right-wing political philosophy, that person is absolutely prohibited from using the appropriate form of either "your" or "you're" in any and all written communication?!?

Look right-wingers...I don't like "spelling police" any more than you do. And I would tend to agree that sometimes, when a person resorts to commenting on spelling, it's because that person doesn't have a good rebuttal.

But damn. You right-wingers almost BEG for it when 96.4% of you seem to have been absent from school the day Ms. Diddlemeyer explained the differences between "your" and "you're", and "there", "their" and "they're". I mean, it's downright spooky how often right-wingers reliably butcher these easy-to-use words.

Any right-wingers want to let me in on the secret??? Is there a reason, other than the stereotypically ascribed ignorance, that you seem unable to differentiate between proper use of these simple words?

I swear...this is one of the frickin' riddles of the universe.

Anonymous said...

I wonder how many people are illegals in Woodburn? Hit the bus stop and places like the Young Street market and see all the vatos (that's for you, you Mexican douchebag poseur) peddling their drugs. lol

Anonymous said...

So, to review the week in Miglavia:

April 2: Parking for hybrid cars paid for by duck stamps!

April 4: A "disturbing" ad for Absolut vodka.

April 7: Dude who is preggers.

April 8: "Changing demographics" in Woodburn.

Welcome to Miglavia, where life's most pressing questions move to the head of the line ...

Anonymous said...

So to review the week in Orygone, you are still a douchebag. Go fuck yourself, cocksucker! lol

Anonymous said...

Miglavians are famous all over ... well, Miglavia, for trying to raise the level of discussion to a more thoughtful and intelligent level. [See post above.]

Bobkatt said...

Federal agents and local police say it took more than a year to finally deal a death blow to a close-knit group that the Drug Enforcement Administration said has smuggled hundreds of pounds of methamphetamine from drug labs in southern Mexico to the streets of Seattle.
So far, 43 people have been arrested this past week, including 23 accused in federal court of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and conspiracy to engage in money laundering.
Nearly 90 pounds of methamphetamine, 50 firearms and $255,000 in currency were seized, authorities said. Several of those arrested were illegal immigrants, and nine children between the ages of 3 months and 15 years were placed with Child Protective Services.
Authorities say the Barragan organization smuggled about 200 pounds of crystal methamphetamine into the United States each month from the family’s hometown in Artega, Mexico.

Anonymous said...

....yes, you festering bile-filled motherfucker, every town has a fucking "Young St."

I often drive by and see fucking white trash huddled together, waiting like fucking douche bags in the fucking rain to buy their fucking meth with fucking money they fucking earned stealing any fucking metal that isn't fucking nailed down.

Don't you have some fucking paper and fucking plastic to fucking seperate you mother fucking bad ass.....



Anonymous said...

Hi again, see tthis is the site i told you i signed up to. It has some nice information about how to make money using OPP, i think you might find it interesting. here it is. bye!

Anonymous said...

Yo, you stupid mother fucker. Get out your car at the Young St. market. Hopefully some vato will take your piece from you, stick it up your ass, and pull the fucking trigger until it goes "click."

Fucktard. You don't know shit about woodburn. You are a self-hating white liberal fuck. Fuck you, you loser fuck Oregon piece of shit.

Accurate said...

I cry foul - the Hispanic (or even Mexican) population of either Hillsboro or Cornelius HAVE to rival that of Woodburn. What are the statistics? What criteria was used? I demand a recount - yes there are a lot of Hispanics in Woodburn but I really think the two towns I mentioned beat them.

Anonymous said...

I think the Nelson you are referring to is Lisa Nelson, who coined the Term "whiteness".U of Oregon coins term "whiteness" to call White people in Woodburn Or racists for not liking the invasion of illegals from Mexico.
how does Lisa Nelson feel about the nine year old girl who was raped last week by an hispanicillegalalienanchorbabyofmexicanmigrants?

Anonymous said...

from point rider Republican blog-
I've seen otherwise. More fresh illegals have been flowing into Woodburn lately and I KNOW they're new because I see the turn-over at several "boarding houses" which are supposedly "single family homes", yet they rent rooms out to anywhere from 2 to 5 Mexican males who live there for a time until they can find places elsewhere with their new fake identification provided by the Mexican mafia.

And get this....yesterday I saw a U-HAUL with ARIZONA license plates. I parked for a while watching and low and behold, when the back panel was opened, at least 15 Hispanic males were dumped off on a corner in old downtown Woodburn.

Governor Kulongoski and his legislators had better get their rears in gear and start passing the same laws as Arizona has because Oregon is getting labelled as an illegal alien stomping ground. Woodburn's city council needs to get a move on these mafia manure spreaders also.

also-get this the first hispanic sheriff Ramirez of Marion county actually worked with the Mexican consulate-as does the mayor who answers to the Consulate.
of course, if immigration laws had been enforced none of the migrants who stayed and refused to go home would be in Woodburn, and it wouldnt be a Mexican city.
deport deport deport

Anonymous said...


Trish, the lying gash from stoptheinvasionoforegon.com writes:

"...And get this....yesterday I saw a U-HAUL with ARIZONA license plates. I parked for a while watching and low and behold, when the back panel was opened, at least 15 Hispanic males were dumped off on a corner in old downtown Woodburn...."

BUSTED!!! She posted this on HER blog of lies and doctored photos, stoptheinvasionoforegon.com, weeks ago.

So when was "yesterday?"


Anonymous said...

snick at night is now a cowardly little stalker , but still a stalker and a hater.
keep up the good work at slander and sexual harrassment( calling a woman a nazi cunt and a gash is a hate crime. yes,it is.here is snick at night -flipping out again:"

Trish, the lying gash from stoptheinvasionoforegon.com writes:

"...And get this....yesterday I saw a U-HAUL with ARIZONA license plates. I parked for a while watching and low and behold, when the back panel was opened, at least 15 Hispanic males were dumped off on a corner in old downtown Woodburn...."

BUSTED!!! She posted this on HER blog of lies and doctored photos, stoptheinvasionoforegon.com, weeks ago.

So when was "yesterday?"


7:17 AM

Anonymous said...

y does it gota be "little mexico" you razest bastard!!! thers ppl from all ova da wordl up in dis bitch. only cuz ya c a brown color walking by is a mexican? ignorant fuckers this was MEXICAN LAND. EVEN THOU that shit was years ago, we still have part of history ova here..AND JUS TO LET YA FUCKERS KNO... NOT EVRY BROWN IS MEXICAN.