him to put them on top of the counter.” After defendant complied with the order, the officer began patting down defendant and asked him if he had any weapons. Defendant admitted that he had “some knives,” though he claimed not to know where. The officer eventually found four knives, a digital scale, two syringes, and a small rock of methamphetamine on defendant. On appeal, defendant contends that, when the officer ordered him to place his hands on the counter, he was unlawfully seized, or stopped, in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The state acknowledges that the officer stopped defendant at that moment. See State v. Ruiz, 196 Or App 324, 327, 101 P3d 824 (2004), rev den, 338 Or 363 (2005) (<HOLDING>). The state contends, however, that the stop
holding that the encounter between an officer and the defendant did not rise to the level of a terry stop until the defendant gave the officer his license and the officer informed the defendant that he was going to be given a patdown holding that an officer stopped the defendant when he ordered the defendant to take his hand out of his pocket holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live holding that defendant was seized where the officer told defendant that she knew that he was on probation defendant admitted to the officer that he had given her a false name and defendant was asked for consent to search a backpack because a reasonable inference was that defendant was the subject of a continuing investigation and his or her freedom of movement had been significantly restricted by the officers show of authority holding that the officer acted within the scope of his authority in requiring the defendant stopped in middle lane of traffic to exit his vehicle