State v. Allen

In the context of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, investigative activities and inquiries during a traffic stop must be reasonably related to the purpose of the stop or be supported by an independent constitutional justification. See State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 712, 451 P3d 939 (2019). An officer’s deployment of a drug-detection dog during a traffic stop for failing to signal continuously for at least 100 feet before turning—without any independent constitutional justification—is a violation of this requirement.

Defendant was a passenger in a car pulled over by officers when the driver failed to signal continuously for at least 100 feet before turning right pursuant to ORS 811.335. The officers, relying on a drug-detection dog, discovered methamphetamine in the vehicle and a knife on defendant’s person. Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of methamphetamine and felon in possession of a restricted weapon. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress all evidence obtained during the stop. On appeal, defendant argued that “the officer’s use of a drug-detection dog was not reasonably related to the reason for the stop, i.e., the failure to signal” and that “the officers lacked probable cause or an independent constitutional justification for the search.” In response, the state argued that defendant’s argument incorrectly assumed that he was seized when police stopped the car for a traffic infraction. The court disposed of the state’s argument when it explained that a passenger is seized if he or she “would understand that the officer’s show of authority in stopping the driver extended to them or that the officer was independently restricting their movement apart from the stop of the driver.” State v. Payne, 310 Or App 672, 679, 487 P3d 413, rev den, 368 Or 514 (2021). The court found that defendant was seized because the officers’ conduct “communicated to defendant that the officers’ show of authority extended to him as well.” The court explained that, “absent independent constitutional violation, a drug-detection dog * * * generally cannot, consistent with Article I, section 9, sniff a car for drugs during a traffic stop.” State v. Soto-Navarro, 309 Or App 218, 223, 482 P3d 150 (2021). Therefore, without any independent constitutional justification nor alternative theory to justify the seizure, the court held that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. Reversed and remanded.