303 P.3d 975
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Trooper Wells stopped a Toyota 4Runner on Interstate 5 for failure to maintain a safe distance; defendant was a passenger and appeared nervous.
- Vehicle had California plates, no visible luggage, and third-party registration; two occupants and two cell phones were present.
- Defendant provided Fonseca’s registration and insurance, and offered his own Oregon ID; Wells later sought consent to search after a warrant check on Fonseca.
- Consent to search form explained he could refuse and that refusal could not be used against him; defendant and Fonseca signed the bilingual form.
- Wells searched the vehicle, methamphetamine was found in a speaker; defendant was charged with unlawful delivery and unlawful possession.
- Trial court held Wells had reasonable suspicion and that consent was valid; on appeal, question was whether the stop was lawful and whether consent was attenuated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion of drug activity? | State argues the indicators collectively amounted to reasonable suspicion. | Defendant contends the indicators do not establish reasonable suspicion. | Stop unlawful; not supported by reasonable suspicion. |
| Was defendant’s consent sufficiently attenuated from the unlawful stop to admit the evidence? | State argues attenuation from unlawful stop; consent admissible. | Consent tainted by unlawful stop; should be suppressed. | Consent sufficiently attenuated; evidence admissible under Article I, section 9. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hall, 339 Or 7 (2005) (attenuation framework after initial illegality)
- State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66 (1993) (reasonable suspicion must be based on articulable facts)
- State v. Maciel, 254 Or App 530 (2013) (two occupants and other indicators treated with caution)
- Juarez-Godinez, 135 Or App 593 (2013) (odor of air freshener and other indicators carry little weight)
- State v. Shirk, 248 Or App 278 (2012) (informing right to refuse consent does not automatically attenuate unlawful conduct)
- State v. Courtney, 242 Or App 321 (2011) (minimal factual nexus concept noted in attenuation analysis)