442 P.3d 1129
Or. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant was a rear-seat passenger in a single-cab pickup stopped for a traffic violation; officer asked for ID from driver and middle passenger.
- Dispatch revealed the middle passenger had an outstanding warrant; she was removed and taken into custody while officers were on scene.
- A tribal officer (Scoville) arrived with a drug-detection dog; the dog scratched at the bag the middle passenger removed and later alerted at the passenger-side window during a pass around the truck.
- Defendant was first contacted only after the dog alerted at the passenger window, told to exit, Mirandized, and then admitted drugs were in his backpack; he consented to a search and contraband was found.
- At suppression, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress; defendant appealed raising (1) Article I, §9 (Oregon Constitution) seizure claim and (2) Fourth Amendment claim that the dog sniff unlawfully extended the traffic stop.
- The appellate court affirmed the state-constitution ruling but vacated and remanded the Fourth Amendment ruling for further findings and reconsideration because the trial court’s reasoning was inconsistent and predated controlling federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deployment of the drug dog around the stopped vehicle, while defendant remained inside, constituted a seizure under Article I, §9 | Dog sniff of exterior of vehicle is not a seizure of a passenger | The dog deployment was a coercive show of authority that seized defendant | Court: No seizure under Article I, §9; denial of suppression affirmed |
| Whether the dog sniff unlawfully extended the traffic stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment | (Preservation argument only) Issue unpreserved — did not brief merits at trial | Dog sniff prolonged the stop beyond mission of traffic stop and required reasonable suspicion | Court: Preservation satisfied; trial court’s Fourth Amendment analysis was unclear/inconsistent and did not apply post-Rodriguez standard — vacated and remanded for express findings on whether the sniff "added time" to the stop |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (passengers are seized during a traffic stop for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passengers are "seized" when vehicle is stopped)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (traffic stop unlawful if prolonged beyond time reasonably required to complete mission; any measurable extension impermissible)
- State v. Amaya, 336 Or. 616 (2004) (under Oregon Constitution, stopping driver is not a seizure of passengers)
- State v. Rosales, 291 Or. App. 762 (2018) (dog sniff can extend a traffic stop; analysis focuses on whether sniff added time)
- State v. Bailey, 356 Or. 486 (2014) (recognizes passengers are seized for Fourth Amendment during traffic stops)
- State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or. 297 (2010) (tests for seizure under Article I, §9: intentional significant restriction or reasonable-person belief under totality)
- State v. Backstrand, 354 Or. 392 (2013) (seizure exceeds ordinary social encounters when conduct is coercive and restrains liberty)