- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 08-16-2017
- Case #: A156698
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercomb, S.J. for the Court; Tokey, P.J.; & Egan, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed conviction of unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s refusal to suppress evidence found during a traffic stop. On appeal, Defendant argued that the officer’s request to search his person was an unlawful extension to the traffic stop because it did not take place during an unavoidable lull. In response, the State argued the request to search was justified under the unavoidable lull exception to the reasonable suspicion requirement because it happened when the officers were waiting for insurance information. During a traffic stop, an officer may not ask about matters unrelated to the reason of the stop “instead of expeditiously proceeding with the steps necessary to complete the stop.” State v Nims, 248 Or App 708, 713, 274 P3d 235, rev den, 352 Or 378 (2012). The Court of Appeals found that the officers did not have a proper exception to reasonable suspicion requirement because the officers changed their attention to investigate an unrelated matter before completing the traffic stop. Reversed and remanded.