Screen Shot 2015-07-09 at 3.28.21 PM.png

Joseph Lucio Jimenez

(Multnomah County Sheriff's Office)

The Oregon Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police aren't justified in asking people they stop if they have a weapon -- if officers are only asking out of general concern for their own safety.

The high court threw out an unlawful-weapon conviction of a 19-year-old man stopped by an Oregon State Police trooper on Jan. 24, 2011 under suspicion of jaywalking at Southeast 122nd Avenue and Division Street in Portland.

The trooper asked Joseph Lucio Jimenez if he had any weapons on him, and Jimenez said yes, a gun, according to the court's summary of the case. Without being asked, Jimenez then put his arms on the hood of the trooper's car so he could be handcuffed.

The officer said he always asks pedestrians he stops if they have weapons for "officer safety reasons." But the Supreme Court said that isn't enough: To question pedestrians or drivers during traffic-related stops, police must have a good, specific reason that leads them to believe they might be in danger.

In arguing to uphold Jimenez's conviction, the state contended that during traffic stops related to violations by pedestrians or drivers, officers should always be allowed to ask if people have weapons because such police work is inherently dangerous. The court disagreed but did acknowledge police work is risky.

"(A)lthough we cannot precisely determine the number of individuals who have guns and use them to assault officers who stop and detain them, such assaults do in fact occur and the resulting harm has been and can be tragic," the court wrote.

Portland police spokesman Sgt. Pete Simpson said the city attorney's office will review Thursday's ruling and determine if any new direction or training needs to be given to officers in light of the ruling.

"Officers will routinely inquire about weapons if they are talking to someone they believe may be armed or someone that they may be searching or arresting," Simpson wrote in an email to The Oregonian/OregonLive.

In Jimenez's case, the trooper testified that although it was midday, he considered Southeast 122nd Avenue and Division Street to be a high-crime area. When Jimenez saw the trooper approach a bench where he'd just sat down, Jimenez got up and walked away, the trooper said.

The trooper also noted that Jimenez was wearing a puffy jacket, a hooded sweatshirt, baggy pants and a green lanyard -- clothing the trooper thought might indicate gang affiliation.

After the trooper inquired about weapons, Jimenez admitted he indeed was a gang member, according to the court's summary of the case. But the Supreme Court noted that the trooper wasn't certain Jimenez was a gang member before asking about a weapon.

Multnomah County Circuit Judge Christopher Marshall denied a defense request to suppress evidence of the gun based on the argument that asking about a weapon was an unjustified extension of the police encounter. Jimenez was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm in May 2011 and sentenced to probation.

The Oregon Court of Appeals in 2014 reversed Jimenez's conviction, and Thursday the Supreme Court agreed with that finding.

Jimenez has been in and out of the criminal justice system since. He was convicted for unlawful use of a weapon in 2013 and for being a felon in possession of a firearm in 2014. Less than 11/2 months after getting released from prison this past April, he was arrested on accusations of being a felon in possession of a firearm, as well as a charge of attempted murder.

Police say that on May 31, 2015, Jimenez was driving an SUV when he is suspected of taking part in a gang-related shootout with a driver in another car, near East 172nd Avenue and Burnside Street in Gresham.

He is back in custody, awaiting trial.

-- Aimee Green

503-294-5119