State v. Dennis
250 Or. App. 732
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Beaverton officer stopped defendant for jaywalking under Beaverton City Code 6.02.520; defendant admitted knives and provided identifying info for warrants check.
- While dispatch was pending, defendant placed hands in pockets; patdown revealed knives and then a small semitransparent container containing a white crystalline substance later believed to be methamphetamine.
- Defendant moved to suppress; argued consent to remove the container was obtained during an unlawful extension of the stop for jaywalking.
- Trial court found no reasonable suspicion that the container held drugs and concluded the consent request could be during an unavoidable lull; still allowed the search and evidence thereafter.
- Upon review, the court held the request to remove the container occurred outside an unavoidable lull and thus unlawfully extended the stop; evidence tainted; case reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the container removal request occurred during an unavoidable lull | State argued lull existed; request lawful during processing. | Rodgers/Kirkeby requires lull; request outside lull unlawful extension. | Unavoidable lull not proven; request unlawfully extended the stop. |
| Whether the unlawful extension tainted the subsequent search | Consent to remove container could justify search if within lull. | Extension invalid; taints opening container and statements. | Evidence tainted; suppression warranted. |
| Whether Gomes governs that brief timing near processing can save an unrelated inquiry | Gomes allows brief, near-simultaneous inquiries. | Gomes limited to unavoidable lull; not here. | Gomes does not apply; here no unavoidable lull. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366 (Or. App. 2008) (unavoidable lull governs permissible unrelated questioning during traffic stops)
- State v. Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 (Or. 2010) (Rodgers-Kirkeby framework on stop extensions)
- Gomes, 236 Or App 364 (Or. App. 2010) (unavoidable lull rule; timing of unrelated inquiries during stop)
- State v. Amell, 230 Or App 336 (Or. App. 2009) (officer-safety doctrine in traffic stops)
- State v. Klein, 234 Or App 523 (Or. App. 2010) (de minimis delay not permitting stop extension)
- State v. Huggett, 228 Or App 569 (Or. App. 2009) (officer’s request for consent can constitute unlawful extension)
- State v. Berry, 232 Or App 612 (Or. App. 2009) (burden on state to prove lull during unrelated inquiry)
- State v. Hendon, 222 Or App 97 (Or. App. 2008) (unavoidable lull and related testing standards)
- State v. Foland, 224 Or App 649 (Or. App. 2008) (reversal where no lull evidence)
- Beaverton v. Hall, 339 Or 7 (Or. 2005) (standard for excluding evidence obtained from illegal stop)