State v. Huffman, 360 P.3d 707

Deputized sheriff’s deputy Bell stopped defendant for traffic violations in a high drug-activity area; defendant immediately exited his vehicle and approached the patrol car.
Bell ordered defendant back into the car; defendant sat with the driver’s door open, appeared very nervous (shaking, avoiding eye contact), and said the window would not roll down.
Bell asked for license/insurance; dispatch reported defendant’s license was suspended and that he was on probation for possession of heroin; a tow was ordered.
During the stop Bell observed repeated furtive hand movements toward defendant’s sweatshirt pocket and instructed him to keep his hands on the wheel; Bell suspected concealment of contraband based on training and experience.
Bell asked about illegal items, obtained consent to search the car, then asked about illegal items on defendant’s person; defendant eventually admitted to heroin and a syringe in his pocket, consented to a pocket search, and was arrested.
Defendant moved to suppress, arguing the officer unlawfully extended the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion; the trial court denied the motion and the conviction for unlawful delivery of heroin was affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer lawfully extended traffic stop to investigate drug crime	Bell developed reasonable suspicion to expand the stop and question defendant	Sercombe (defendant) argued questioning exceeded scope of traffic stop and constituted a seizure without reasonable suspicion	Court held the totality of facts gave reasonable suspicion, so any extension was lawful
Whether officer subjectively believed criminal activity was occurring	State: officer testified he suspected crime, maybe drugs	Defendant: disputed that officer had subjective suspicion	Court presumed trial court found officer had subjective belief and that finding was supported by record
Whether facts known to officer were sufficient for objective reasonable suspicion	State: combination of location, immediate exit, nervousness, probation status, and furtive movements created suspicion	Defendant: individual factors insufficient and questioning was unrelated to traffic stop	Court held factors collectively gave rise to reasonable suspicion
Whether questioning was merely an "unavoidable lull" versus an extension	State alternatively argued questions occurred during unavoidable lull	Defendant argued inquiries unlawfully prolonged the stop	Court assumed, without deciding, there was an extension and found it justified by reasonable suspicion

State v. Holdorf, 355 Or. 812, 333 P.3d 982 (2014) (standard for reviewing reasonable-suspicion determinations and weight of officer training/experience)
State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or. 610, 227 P.3d 695 (2010) (traffic stop is a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion)
State v. Dennis, 250 Or. App. 732, 282 P.3d 955 (2012) (officer may not extend stop by inquiries into unrelated matters except during unavoidable lull)
State v. Steffens, 250 Or. App. 742, 282 P.3d 888 (2012) (stop may be extended to investigate unrelated criminal conduct only with reasonable suspicion)
State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66, 854 P.2d 421 (1993) (objective reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts)
State v. McHaffie, 271 Or. App. 379, 350 P.3d 600 (2015) (immediate exit from vehicle and repeated pocket movements can contribute to reasonable suspicion)