State v. Kentopp
251 Or. App. 527
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Trooper stopped defendant for not wearing a seatbelt on I-5; during the stop, officer observed furtive movement toward a purse and defendant’s nervous demeanor and physical condition; defendant lacked license, registration, and proof of insurance, and claimed he borrowed the car; trooper extended the stop to investigate drugs after requesting a records check and deploying a drug-sniffing dog; defendant admitted a baggie of methamphetamine after the dog alerted; evidence led to conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine; suppression motion denied at trial; on appeal, defendant argued unlawful extension of the stop and challenged record-keeping timing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop was unlawfully extended without reasonable suspicion | Jeter had reasonable suspicion due to theft risk and elusion indicators | Extension was justified by reasonable suspicion of burglary or flight | No; extension unsupported by reasonable suspicion; admission and evidence suppressed |
| Whether the drug investigation occurred during an unavoidable lull | Investigation occurred during lull after records check | Unavoidable lull justifies unrelated inquiry | No; State did not prove unavoidable lull; extension invalid |
| Whether evidence and statements must be suppressed due to unlawfulness | Admissible since stop/Terry framework valid | Illegality taints admissions and evidence | Suppression warranted; admission and drug evidence suppressed |
| Whether Klein controls the outcome on police extension without suspicion for the drug crime | Klein supports extension with suspicion for other crimes | Klein supports the rule that unrelated drug inquiry cannot extend stop without suspicion for that drug offense |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Klein, 234 Or App 523 (2010) (unrelated inquiry after records check requires suspicion for the drug issue)
- State v. Frias, 229 Or App 60 (2009) (past drug use signs do not establish current possession suspicion)
- State v. Berry, 232 Or App 612 (2009) (furtive movements alone do not create reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Holdorf, 250 Or App 509 (2012) (nervous demeanor alone lacks support for possession suspicion)
- State v. Holcomb, 202 Or App 73 (2005) (physical signs of past drug use not sufficient for current possession suspicion)
- State v. Mitchele, 240 Or App 86 (2010) (reasonable suspicion requires objective facts plus subjectivity)
- State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366 (2008) (unavoidable lull concept for inquiries unrelated to the stop)