- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 04-12-2017
- Case #: A159554
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Flynn, J. for the Court; Sercombe, P.J.; & DeHoog, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for DUII, ORS 813.010(1). Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence which she claims resulted from the unlawful extension a lawful traffic stop. On appeal, Defendant argued that the officers unlawfully continued to investigate her further without reasonable suspicion of DUII once the officers saw “no signs of damage beyond those associated with normal usage.” Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, when officers have an initial lawful basis for a stop, but extend the stop past the point at which the initial lawful reason for the stop has dissipated, the extension “must be justified by at least reasonable suspicion of some other criminal activity.” State v. Sherman, 274 Or App 764, 773 (2015). In this case, it was undisputed that the officers’ had probable cause to stop Defendant based on the belief she was operating an unsafe vehicle, and had failed to report her vehicle caused damage to property. ORS 811.700. The Court of Appeals held the officers were justified in forming reasonable suspicion that Defendant was driving while intoxicated, ORS 813.010(1), during their initial lawful stop based upon (1) the odor of alcohol coming from Defendant’s vehicle, (2) Defendant’s denial of alternative sources for the odor, (3) Defendant’s glassy eyes, and (4) the officers’ observation that Defendant placed of a piece of peppermint in her mouth during the stop. Affirmed.