State v. Davis

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 07-06-2017
  • Case #: A156825
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J. for the Court; Lagesen, J.; & Garrett, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, when a stop is initially lawful, “it may endure only for the time it takes an officer to complete an investigation that is reasonably related to the basis for the stop.” State v. Sherman, 274 Or. App. 764, 773 (2015).

Defendant appealed the trial court’s judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress. On appeal, Defendant argued that the officer’s observations that Defendant “appeared to be under the influence of intoxicants did not provide the officer with reasonable suspicion” to extend the lawful stop of Defendant to investigate drug possession. In response, the State argued, under the totality of circumstances, that the officer had reasonable suspicion that Defendant possessed controlled substances when he asked Defendant, “whether a drug detection canine would alert on his pickup [truck].” Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, when a stop is initially lawful, “it may endure only for the time it takes an officer to complete an investigation that is reasonably related to the basis for the stop.” State v. Sherman, 274 Or. App. 764, 773 (2015). “[W]hen an officer reasonably believes that [a] defendant is under the influence of intoxicants, reasonable suspicion of drug possession can be demonstrated when ‘something more’ is present.” In this case, the officer stated that his suspicion that Defendant was in possession of drugs were: (1) the officer’s observations of Defendant’s probable intoxication, (2) Defendant’s presence at a “location indicative of criminal activity,” and (3) Defendant’s rummaging through his vehicle. The Court of Appeals held, under the totality of circumstances, the “something more” necessary to show objectively reasonable “suspicion that Defendant possessed drugs” was missing in this case. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search