State v. Farrar, 252 Or. App. 256

Defendant was stopped on I-5 for a lane-change violation at night; a passenger rode in the front seat.
Officer Ledbetter observed defendant lighting a cigarette during the stop and deemed this unusual and potentially masking odor of drugs.
Defendant exhibited extreme nervousness, fidgety behavior, and bruxism, which the officer linked to possible methamphetamine use.
Defendant consented to a search of the car but not the purse; the officer later asked to search the purse and defendant complied with flipping through its contents.
During the purse search, a small coin purse revealed methamphetamine, a razor, and a straw; defendant was charged with unlawful possession of methamphetamine; motion to suppress was denied by the trial court.
On appeal, the court reversed and remanded, concluding the stop extension was not supported by reasonable suspicion of present possession and the consent was tainted by the unlawful extension.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there reasonable suspicion of present meth possession to extend the stop?	Defendant argues the totality of facts did not show present possession.	Ledbetter's inferences from nervousness and drug-use indicators were not objectively reasonable.	No; totality failed to show present possession.
Was the stop extension lawful given the lack of present possession suspicion?	Defendant contends extension based on suspicion of possession was unlawful.	The officer extended the stop for search-related questioning without articulable present-possession basis.	Unlawful extension; suppression reversed.
Does the record permit addressing alternative basis (recent possession) for affirmance?	State suggested recent possession as another basis.	Court should not reach non-recorded alternative theory.	Declined to address; prudentially not decided.

State v. Bertsch, 251 Or App 128 (2012) (unlawful extension when lacking reasonable suspicion)
State v. Ehret, 184 Or App 1 (2002) (reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts)
State v. Rutledge, 243 Or App 603 (2011) (facts must be particularized to individual)
State v. Miglavs, 337 Or 1 (2004) (basis for suspicion must be individualized)
State v. Jones, 245 Or App 186 (2011) (training/experience alone not enough; lacks certainty)
State v. Lavender, 93 Or App 361 (1988) (use-and-appearance of drug impairment alone not enough)
State v. Morton, 151 Or App 734 (1997) (observations consistent with intoxication not probability of crime)
State v. Daniels, 234 Or App 533 (2010) (varying explanation of training/experience sufficiency)