State v. Dampier, 260 P.3d 730

At 3:10 a.m., two Philomath officers stopped a parked car after observing a bicyclist speaking with the backseat passenger (defendant) near a high-drug-activity motel and smelling marijuana.
The bicyclist, later found with marijuana and a pipe, was detained, handcuffed, and placed in a patrol car after a bulge in his clothing raised concern for a weapon.
Officers returned to the parked car, where the odor of marijuana persisted; they asked the occupants to exit, and the driver consented to a vehicle search for weapons or drugs.
A resealable bag containing 18 baggies of marijuana was found in the backseat area beneath defendant’s seating, leading to defendant’s admission that the marijuana was his and that he had bought it in Portland.
The encounter occurred within 1,000 feet of Philomath High School, and defendant was charged with unlawful delivery of marijuana within 1,000 feet of a school and delivery for consideration.
The trial court suppressed all evidence, ruling the stop lacked reasonable suspicion; on appeal, the State argued the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion?	Damptier argues the stop was unlawful due to lack of suspicion.	Dampier contends no reasonable suspicion existed from the totality of circumstances.	Yes; stop supported by reasonable suspicion.
Did the odor of marijuana and surrounding circumstances justify continued detention/search of the vehicle?	State argues combined evidence created reasonable inference of criminal activity after bicyclist’s arrest.	Dampier contends initial justification dissipated and later actions were beyond lawful seizure.	The later search was permissible; evidence not suppressed.

State v. Lay, 242 Or.App. 38 (2011) (reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts viewed under totality of circumstances)
State v. Rutledge, 243 Or.App. 603 (2011) (reasonable suspicion analyzed under totality of circumstances)
State v. Hiner, 240 Or.App. 175 (2010) (reasonable suspicion does not require conclusive evidence of crime)
State v. Loud, 149 Or.App. 250 (1997) (officers need not observe a hand-to-hand transaction to have reasonable suspicion)
State v. Derrah, 191 Or.App. 511 (2004) (scent of marijuana can support inference of drug activity)
State v. Johnson, 120 Or.App. 151 (1993) (aroma of drugs can support reasonable suspicion)
State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or. 297 (2010) (seizure analysis focuses on show of authority and freedom of movement)
State v. Holmes, 311 Or. 400 (1991) (police may approach and question without articulating a certain level of suspicion)