273 P.3d 228
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Portland Police Officer Thurman stopped defendant for riding a bicycle without a headlight, a traffic violation under ORS 815.280(2)(c).
- During the stop, Thurman asked for identification and ran information through dispatch to issue a citation.
- While processing, Thurman observed the knife on defendant and sought consent to search, leading to the discovery of drugs.
- Defendant argued the stop was unlawfully extended when Thurman ran records and warrant checks before issuing the citation.
- The trial court denied the suppression motion; the issue on appeal was whether the stop was unlawfully extended by the checks and dispatch inquiry.
- The court held the stop was not unlawfully extended and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the records/warrant check impermissibly extend the stop? | Leino argues the check extended the stop beyond its lawful scope. | Leino contends the check was unrelated to the traffic violation and delayed issuance of the citation. | No; the check was within the stop's scope. |
| Was contacting dispatch to verify identity within the lawful stop? | Leino asserts contacting dispatch transformed the stop into an investigation. | Leino maintains it extended the stop beyond routine inquiry. | Yes, within scope of a lawful traffic stop. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or. 610 (2010) (records/warrant checks permissible within traffic-stop scope)
- State v. Gomes, 236 Or. App. 364 (2010) (unavoidable lull does not extend stop if no delay)
- State v. Amaya, 176 Or.App. 35 (2001) (unrelated inquiry during routine stop during lull; no extension)
- State v. Smith, 73 Or.App. 287 (1985) (records check commonly accompanies stops; does not exceed authority)
- State v. Hampton, 247 Or.App. 147 (2011) (asking for license/registration is routine during stops)