State v. Jackson, 342 P.3d 119

Trooper Hargis followed defendant into a gas station, observed him, then approached after defendant came inside; Hargis told defendant he "wanted to talk" about failing to signal at a Y intersection.
Hargis questioned defendant about his trip; during questioning Hargis noted signs (bloodshot eyes, slow speech, dilated pupils) suggesting recent marijuana use and suspected trafficking.
Defendant initially refused a car search, consented after repeated requests, and Hargis found ~½ pound of marijuana in the trunk and nearly $4,000 on defendant.
Trial court denied suppression, finding no stop at the outset and that Hargis had reasonable suspicion/probable cause and voluntary consent; defendant was convicted on stipulated facts.
On appeal defendant argued the initial encounter was a stop unsupported by probable cause and that the consent/search derived from that unlawful stop.
The court concluded the officer’s statement that he had seen the traffic violation and that he wanted to talk constituted a stop, that the record lacks objective facts supporting probable cause for the signal violation, and that the consent/search were tainted by the unlawful stop.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the initial encounter was a seizure/stop	It was a nonseizure conversational contact (no stop)	Hargis’s statement that he wanted to talk about a traffic violation was an accusation that stopped defendant	The statement constituted a stop (seizure) because it unambiguously conveyed an accusation and restraint
Whether the stop was supported by probable cause	Even if there was an accusation, the stop was lawful or not challenged on probable cause	The record lacks objective facts to support probable cause for failure to signal	No; state failed to show objectively reasonable probable cause, so the stop was unlawful
Whether defendant’s consent to search was voluntary or tainted by the stop	Consent was voluntary and not the product of any illegality	Consent derived from and was exploited from the unlawful stop so evidence must be suppressed	Consent was fruit of the unlawful stop; search evidence tainted and suppression required
Whether evidence discovered (marijuana, cash) is admissible	Evidence did not derive from illegal stop or sufficient intervening circumstances broke the causal chain	Evidence derived from exploitation of the unlawful stop and must be excluded	Evidence derived from the illegal stop and must be excluded; conviction reversed and remanded

State v. Hall, 339 Or 7 (discusses consent search and Oregon exclusionary rule)
State v. Davis, 295 Or 227 (warrant requirement and exceptions)
State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297 (defines conversation, stop, arrest framework)
State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 (show of authority and restraint analysis)
State v. Backstrand, 354 Or 392 (mere request for identification vs. stop)
State v. Anderson, 354 Or 440 (context can keep identification request from being a stop)
State v. Morfin-Estrada, 251 Or App 158 (telling a person they committed a violation constitutes a stop)
State v. Musser, 356 Or 148 (consent obtained during illegal stop can be fruit of the illegality)
State v. Unger, 356 Or 84 (factors for determining exploitation of police misconduct)