majority">*553RICHARDSON, J.

The state appeals an order suppressing evidence seized from a vehicle in which defendants were riding. The issue is whether the stop of the motor vehicle was lawful.

In the early afternoon of August 19, 1978, a State Police Officer assigned to fish and game enforcement stopped the vehicle in which the defendants were riding. He seized two freshly killed deer carcasses and issued citations to the three defendants charging them with illegal possession of deer. The stop was made on a private road owned by a timber company.

At the hearing on defendants’ motion to suppress the deer seized as a result of the stop, the officer testified that approximately one week prior to the stop he had received information from a confidential, reliable source that illegal deer killing was being done on the timber company’s property. The only game animal season open at the time was for bear. The confidential information did not relate to any particular individual or vehicle. Based on this information the officer decided to check the area. He testified that he had 24 years experience as a game officer and the only effective method he knew for checking for illegal game violations was to check each vehicle in a hunting or fishing area. When he arrived at the area, he testified that he intended to stop every vehicle he encountered and check for illegal fish or game.

He entered the private road at a fire gate manned by the timber company’s fire watchman. Approximately three miles from the gate he encountered the vehicle containing the defendants. He turned on a visible red light and flagged the vehicle down. He testified that he had no basis for stopping this particular vehicle other than his intention to stop all vehicles he saw in the area. The officer was driving a marked police vehicle and was wearing a game officer’s uniform.

*554After he approached the stopped vehicle, he saw a hunting rifle leaning against the seat. He also observed some deer hair on a tool box attached to the side of the vehicle. He testified that he recognized the deer hair as that of "summer deer” and he inferred from this that a deer had recently been killed. He opened the tool box and discovered a deer carcass, wrapped in rain gear. He found a second deer carcass in another tool box on the vehicle.

The state argues that the stop was justified on either of two statutory bases, ORS 131.615(1) or ORS 496.660(1).

ORS 131.615(1) provides:

"A peace officer who reasonably suspects that a person has committed a crime may stop the person and, after informing the person that he is a peace officer, make a reasonable inquiry.”

To justify a stop under this statute there must be specific articulable facts upon which to base a reasonable suspicion that the occupants of the vehicle committed a crime. State v. Valdez, 277 Or 621, 561 P2d 1006 (1977); State v. Brown, 31 Or App 501, 570 P2d 1001 (1977). The only articulable fact known to the officer prior to the stop was that there had been illegal deer kills in the area sometime prior to his receipt of the information a week earlier. That information did not relate to these defendants or this vehicle and was not sufficient to justify a stop of a vehicle under ORS 131.615.

ORS 496.660(1) grants game officers authority to make a warrantless search of certain places, including vehicles, when they have "reason to believe” that game law violations have occurred:

"Any person mentioned in ORS 496.645 [game officers] may search any person, and examine any boat, automobile, aircraft, conveyance, vehicle, game bag, game coat or other receptacle for wildlife, or cold storage rooms, warehouses, taverns, boarding houses, restaurants, club rooms, outhouses, saloons, depots, *555hotels and all other places, except private dwelling houses, wherein wildlife may be kept or sold, and examine all packages and boxes held either for storage or shipment which they have reason to believe contain evidence of violations of the wildlife laws.”

The state concedes, and we agree, that in order to make the search allowed by this statute, the game officer must have reason to believe that there is evidence of a violation of the wildlife laws in the place searched. See State v. Evans, 143 Or 603, 22 P2d 496 (1933). The statutory authority to search a vehicle is inseparable from the authority to stop the vehicle for purposes of a search. In other words, the game officer must have reason to believe the vehicle contains evidence of wildlife law violations before the stop to search can be made. The information possessed by the officer prior to stopping defendants’ vehicle did not give him a basis to believe there was evidence of wildlife law violations in the vehicle. The stop cannot be justified under ORS 496.660(1).

In a supplemental brief, the state argues that the stop in this case does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and therefor the evidence should not be suppressed. The argument is based on a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, Delaware v. Prouse, _ US _, 99 S Ct 1391, 59 L Ed 2d 660 (1979). In that case the Supreme Court held the random stop of an automobile for the purpose of checking the vehicle registration and the operator’s license violated the Fourth Amendment in the absence of an articulable and reasonable suspicion that vehicle or the operator was unlicensed. The court stated:

"* * *This holding does not preclude the State of Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type *556stops is one possible alternative. * * *” (Footnote omitted.) _ US at _, 59 L Ed 2d at 673-74.1

The state argues that the stop in this case is in the nature of a roadblock wherein the officér developed neutral criterion for stopping vehicles, i.e., he intended to stop every vehicle he encountered.

We do not agree this stop was a roadblock stop and therefore we do not reach the question whether ORS 131.615(1) or 496.660(1) prohibits a roadblock or its equivalent.

Affirmed.

The concurring opinion of Justice Blackmun, joined in by Justice Powell, states:

«* * * And I would not regard the present case as a precedent that throws any constitutional shadow upon the necessarily somewhat individualized and perhaps largely random examinations by game wardens in the performance of their duties. In a situation of that type, it seems to me, the Court’s balancing process, and the value factors under consideration, would be quite different.” _ US at _, 59 L Ed 2d at 674.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress