State v. Hampton
247 Or. App. 147
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Officer stops Hampton for headlight and expired registration; Hampton unable to locate registration while officer asks about contraband and drugs.
- Hampton consents to a search; officer returns to car, runs records, and then informs Hampton he will issue a warning and that Hampton is free to go.
- Officer conducts a search during an unavoidable lull in the stop based on Hampton's prior consent; mushrooms found under the driver's seat and identified as psilocybin mushrooms.
- Hampton admits ownership of mushrooms and provides a statement; Miranda rights are read while Hampton is in custody, followed by additional questioning.
- Pretrial motion to suppress is deemed deficient under UTCR 4.060(1)(b); bench trial proceeds with suppression issues framed as whether the stop was unlawfully extended.
- Trial court finds the stop was unlawfully extended and suppresses Hampton’s statements but not the mushrooms; Hampton is convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the consent search survive suppression due to wavering stop extension? | Hampton's consent search was lawful under a lull during a valid stop. | Consent/search violated Article I, section 9 by extending the stop unlawfully. | Yes; search lawful, not an unlawful extension. |
| Was the trial court's denial of the pretrial motion to suppress harmless error? | Any error was harmless because the evidence was admissible. | The motion should have been considered on its merits under UTCR 4.060(1)(b). | Harmless error; admissible evidence supports conviction. |
| Are Hampton's statements to the officer admissible? | Statements were voluntary and obtained after acknowledging freedom to leave. | Statements were obtained during an unlawful extension of the stop. | Admissible; no unlawful extension affecting statements. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gomes, 236 P.3d 841 (2010) (consent during lull in stop does not extend stop)
- State v. Raney, 168 P.3d 803 (2007) (no extension of stop where inquiry occurs during reasonable stop duration)
- State v. Jones, 245 P.3d 148 (2010) (consent to search during unavoidable lull does not delay stop)
- State v. Berry, 222 P.3d 758 (2009) (officer may question during stop if unrelated; extended questioning requires suspicion)
- State v. Courtney, 255 P.3d 577 (2011) (routine traffic-stop requests do not implicate Article I, section 9)