State v. Peters

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 04-02-2014
  • Case #: A151003
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the court.; De Muniz S.J.; & DeVore, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Asking a person lawfully stopped for a traffic violation the location of a known associate that is at large does not constitute an unlawful extension of the stop via Article 1, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.

Defendant appeals her conviction for possession of methamphetamine. Defendant moved to suppress evidence of meth possession stemming from discovery of meth incidental to a valid traffic stop. Defendant contended that the officer's inquiry into the location of a known associate unlawfully extended the stop such that any evidence of meth possession that was fruit of the stop required suppression. Relying on State v. Courtney, 242 Or App 321, 338, 255 P.3d. 577 rev den, 351 Or 401 (2011), the Court ruled that the Defendant must show a causal relationship between the officer's questioning that unlawfully extended the stop and the discovery of the meth in question. The Court held that no such connection existed on the facts, and affirmed Defendant's conviction and the lower Court's denial of motion to suppress.

Advanced Search