State v. Aguilar, 478 P.3d 558

At ~2:38 a.m. deputy Mitchell observed a car flash headlights and turn into a Goodwill parking lot without signaling; he initiated a traffic stop and the car stopped in the lot ~100 yards later.
Mitchell did not observe defendant (right rear passenger) or her seatbelt while the vehicle was on the public roadway or while following the car through the lot; he first noticed she lacked a shoulder belt about 10–12 seconds after the vehicle left the highway and was stopped in the lot.
Defendant told Mitchell she had just taken the seatbelt off; Mitchell testified he disbelieved that based on his experience that people do not remove belts when being stopped.
Backup deputy Vargas took defendant’s ID, learned she was on probation for methamphetamine, asked to search her purse, and defendant consented; methamphetamine was found and admitted at bench trial.
Procedurally: defendant was initially charged by information and a preliminary hearing was set; at the hearing substitute counsel stated defendant had waived the prelim/indictment (defendant nodded); court entered an order waiving indictment; defendant was later convicted on a district attorney’s information and appealed.
The Court of Appeals (en banc) rejected defendant’s claim that the conviction was void for lack of indictment/prelim waiver, but reversed on suppression grounds, holding the officer lacked probable cause to stop defendant for a seatbelt violation and the consent search was tainted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conviction is void for lack of indictment or knowing waiver of indictment/preliminary hearing under Or. Const. Art. VII §5	State: Substitute counsel’s statement and defendant’s nod show a knowing waiver, so circuit court had jurisdiction	Aguilar: Record does not show the court advised her or that she knowingly waived; conviction is void without indictment or knowing waiver	Court: Waiver was established by counsel’s representation and defendant’s nod; conviction is not void
Whether officers had probable cause to stop/detain defendant for a seatbelt violation (thus validating the subsequent ID check and consent search)	State: Officer reasonably concluded defendant likely removed belt after stop; officer’s observation plus training/experience supplied probable cause	Aguilar: Officer never observed defendant without a belt on the highway; observing her unbelted in a stopped car ~10–12 sec after leaving highway is insufficient—experience cannot supply the unobserved fact	Court: No probable cause—officer did not observe the violation on the highway and experience alone cannot supply missing facts; motion to suppress should have been granted; conviction reversed and remanded

State v. Keys, 302 Or App 514 (Or. Ct. App. 2020) (absence of indictment, preliminary hearing, or knowing waiver can render a felony judgment void)
State v. Foss-Vigil, 304 Or App 267 (Or. Ct. App. 2020) (record must affirmatively show absence of knowing waiver to set aside conviction for lack of indictment/prelim)
State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695 (Or. 2019) (rejecting the "unavoidable lull" doctrine; questions unrelated to the stop require independent constitutional justification)
State v. Vasquez-Villagomez, 346 Or 12 (Or. 2009) (probable cause under Article I, §9 is based on totality of circumstances and requires facts that make it more likely than not the offense occurred)
State v. Unger, 356 Or 59 (Or. 2014) (when consent follows an illegal stop, the state bears the burden to prove the consent was voluntary and not the product of exploitation)