State v. Booth

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Evidence
  • Date Filed: 07-08-2015
  • Case #: A150751
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J., for the Court; Egan, J.; & De Muniz, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Evidence obtained during an unlawfully extended traffic stop is inadmissible.

Defendant convicted of one count of unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Defendant appealed, arguing that trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop which Defendant claimed the arresting officer extended “without reasonable suspicion.” According to the facts, the arresting officer pulled over Defendant for speeding, then extended the traffic stop by inquiring as to why Defendant appeared “nervous,” which lead to Defendant’s arrest. Defendant’s theory was that because the stop was unlawfully extended, the evidence obtained during the stop was unlawfully obtained. The state conceded that the stop was “unlawfully extended,” but argued that the evidence should not be suppressed because of the “right for the wrong reason doctrine.” The state offered the view that Defendant was informed that he had the right to refuse a search, and so the evidence was admissible because Defendant consented to a search in his silence. The Court found that the traffic stop was unlawfully extended, and that the arresting officer potentially exploited Defendant’s consent to a search as a means by which to extend the traffic stop. As such, the Court held that the evidence collected during that traffic stop was unlawfully obtained. Because of this the Court determined that the trial court erred in its denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search