State v. Kolb
251 Or. App. 303
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Corporal Ruble stopped a car in Riddle for crossing center line; defendant was a passenger and showed signs of recent drug use.
- Ruble obtained driver’s license and vehicle documents; no warrants indicated by records check.
- Ruble returned, had driver step out, and asked about drugs/weapons; obtained consent to search the car.
- A duffle bag (identified as defendant’s) yielded a tin can with methamphetamine; defendant gave inculpatory statements after Miranda.
- Defendant moved to suppress the bag’s contents and her statements, arguing unlawful seizure and tainted consent.
- Trial court denied suppression, accepting Ruble’s drug-recognition testimony as showing reasonable suspicion; conviction followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion when license was obtained? | State—observations pre-records check supported suspicion. | Ruble lacked sufficient suspicion at that time. | Stop not supported by reasonable suspicion; reversal remand. |
| Did timing of the stop (license request vs. observable signs) affect reasonable suspicion? | State—signs observed before/at stop justified. | Defendant—not stopped until after license request; insufficient to justify. | Timing undermines suspicion; not supported. |
| Is the consent to search tainted by an unlawful stop and suppressible as fruit of the illegality? | State—consent independent; search would have occurred anyway. | Consent obtained during unlawful stop; suppressible. | Consent tainted; suppressible evidence. |
| Did the state’s alternative ‘recent past possession’ theory salvage the stop? | State—could justify on recent possession. | Theory not cogently developed; inappropriate to decide here. | Not addressed; prudentially declined. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Morton, 151 Or App 734 (Or. App. 1997) (limits on using officer observations to justify seizure)
- State v. Lavender, 93 Or App 361 (Or. App. 1988) (drug-use appearance alone not sufficient for probable cause)
- State v. Holcomb, 202 Or App 73 (Or. App. 2005) (limits on suspicions based on track marks; cautions against status-based stops)
- State v. Jones, 245 Or App 186 (Or. App. 2011) (request for identification plus questioning may or may not constitute a stop)
- Outdoor Media Dimensions Inc. v. State of Oregon, 331 Or 634 (Or. 2001) (prudential limits on addressing alternative bases for affirmance)
- State v. Blount, 143 Or App 582 (Or. App. 1996) (premises for reasonable suspicion must be non-speculative)
- State v. Daline, 175 Or App 625 (Or. App. 2001) (presence under influence not alone evidence of possession)