417 P.3d 449
Or. Ct. App.2018Background
- Officer Barden stopped defendant for a traffic violation after observing a slow, 29-second "very slow pull over" with repeated head movements toward the center of the vehicle.
- After stopping, defendant verbally identified himself (license was suspended) and repeatedly glanced toward the center console and floor while speaking with Barden; Barden became suspicious of concealed weapons or other criminal activity.
- Senior Trooper Chambers arrived, told Barden defendant gave an implausible travel story and that the vehicle belonged to defendant's girlfriend, who was "known to be involved in controlled substances."
- Barden returned to the vehicle, asked non-traffic questions about hidden items/drugs/weapons, ordered defendant out, patted him down, and a knife on the center console was later noted; officers found methamphetamine in the area where defendant had been looking.
- Defendant was convicted after a stipulated-facts trial; he appealed the denial of his suppression motion arguing the investigatory extension of the stop lacked reasonable suspicion.
- The court reversed, holding the record did not support reasonable suspicion for either drug possession or felon-in-possession prior to the extension, and the suppression-error was not harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer reasonably suspected drug possession so as to lawfully extend a traffic stop | Barden reasonably suspected drug possession based on delayed pull-over, furtive glances toward console, nervousness, implausible travel story, and vehicle association with a person linked to drugs | Those facts do not tie defendant specifically to present drug possession; nervousness and association are insufficient | No reasonable suspicion for drug possession; suppression should have been granted |
| Whether officer reasonably suspected unlawful possession of a weapon (felon-in-possession) before extending the stop | State contends the same observed behavior plus defendant's felon status supported suspicion of a weapon offense | Defendant argues record does not show Barden knew defendant was a felon before he ordered him out and began the investigation | Record does not show Barden knew defendant was a felon before extending stop; felon status cannot be relied on; no reasonable suspicion |
| Whether any causal connection issue allows affirmance despite an unlawful extension (inevitable discovery/inevitable-exposure argument) | State argues knife became visible when defendant exited vehicle and would have been discovered regardless because license was suspended | Defendant notes the state did not raise inevitability below and record could have developed differently | Court declined to affirm on that alternative; state did not preserve that argument below |
| Whether denial of suppression was harmless error | State did not show the evidence would have been discovered absent the unlawful extension | Defendant contends stored evidence was product of illegal extension and should be suppressed | Error was not harmless; convictions reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or. 163 (officer must suspect a specific crime; two-step reasonable-suspicion analysis)
- State v. Reich, 287 Or. App. 292 (association with a person involved in drugs and nervousness insufficient for reasonable suspicion of drug possession)
- State v. Huffman, 274 Or. App. 308 (totality including high-drug-area, furtive movements, prior drug conviction can support reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Holdorf, 355 Or. 812 ("something more" connecting suspect to present drug activity required)
- State v. McHaffie, 271 Or. App. 379 (indexing/furtive movements tied to present drug possession supported reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Worthington, 265 Or. App. 368 (only facts available before the stop are considered in reasonable-suspicion analysis)