State v. Jones
239 Or. App. 201
Or. Ct. App.2010Background
- At 1:30 a.m., Sergeant Russick observed Jones bicycle against traffic rules and without a functioning light.
- Russick believed Jones resembled a person with a felony warrant from a flier seen earlier that evening.
- He intended to issue traffic citations and to determine if Jones was the wanted subject.
- Jones had no identification; he displayed normal name when asked, and Russick detected a strong odor of alcohol with signs of impairment.
- Before obtaining a second officer, Russick asked for Jones's consent to search for weapons and contraband; Jones consented and the search yielded cocaine.
- Jones was convicted after a bench trial, following denial of his motion to suppress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of consent during traffic stop | Jones—Rodgers/Kirkeby bars searches after stop extent | Jones—consent invalid as beyond stop scope | Consent valid; search authorized by ORS 810.410 during an unavoidable lull |
| Applicability of Rodgers/Kirkeby vs. Amaya/Hall | Jones—Rodgers/Kirkeby controls | State—Amaya/Hall distinguish Rodgers/Kirkeby | Hall controls; inquiries during lull do not delay stop and may be consent-based |
| Extent and duration of stop | Stop extended to search with consent | Consent delayed stop or extended investigation | Request for consent occurred during an unavoidable lull and did not extend stop |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or. 610 (2010) (authorizes consent/search during traffic stop if within scope of investigation)
- State v. Amaya, 176 Or.App. 35 (2001) (consent to search permissible if related to stop and does not delay it)
- State v. Hall, 238 Or.App. 75 (2010) (unrelated inquiries during a routine stop may be permissible if they do not delay stop)