Background
A Portland police detective assigned to the human-trafficking division observed a woman standing near Northeast Sandy Boulevard in an area associated with prostitution-related activity. The detective believed she was a sex worker based on her clothing, her attention to her phone and passing traffic, her lack of an apparent destination, and her apparent lack of concern for her safety.
The detective then saw Michael Eugene Merryman stop nearby, drive away, circle back, and pull into a tavern parking lot. The woman followed the car, entered it, rode across the street, and left about 10 to 15 seconds later to walk toward a mini market. Officers arrested Merryman and found a handgun in his car. After the trial court denied his suppression motion, Merryman entered a conditional plea and was convicted of attempted commercial sexual solicitation and unlawful possession of a firearm.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the detective lacked an objectively reasonable basis to believe that Merryman more likely than not had taken a substantial step toward exchanging payment for sexual conduct. The woman’s presence in a high-vice area, her weather-inappropriate clothing, and her otherwise ordinary conduct did not objectively establish that she was a sex worker.
Merryman’s stopping, circling back, and briefly picking up the woman could be consistent with illegal sex-work activity, but those circumstances were also compatible with lawful conduct. The detective did not observe several indicators that his own training associated with such transactions, including eye contact or signaling between the parties, and the brief drive across the street to a mini market was inconsistent with the typical sequence he described. Because the evidence supported suspicion and further observation but not probable cause, the court reversed and remanded.
Key Takeaways
- An officer’s training and experience may inform the probable-cause analysis but cannot supply the entire basis for probable cause.
- Presence in an area associated with prostitution and conduct that has plausible lawful explanations did not make criminal activity more likely than not.
- Courts assessing the totality of the circumstances consider both observed indicators of criminal activity and the absence of conduct officers describe as typical of that activity.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes reasonable suspicion warranting continued investigation from probable cause sufficient for an arrest. Even in a location associated with illegal activity, police must have objective facts making the criminal explanation more likely than lawful alternatives.
The ruling also limits reliance on subjective judgments about a woman’s clothing and ordinary public behavior as indicators of sex work. Because the arrest was unsupported by probable cause, the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the resulting evidence.