State v. Miller, 340 P.3d 740

Defendant was stopped for a traffic infraction after turning without signaling for at least 100 feet and driving slowly through a parking lot.
During the stop, Gould formed the belief that defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance based on nervousness, slow monotone responses, delayed answers, dilated pupils, and needle marks.
Gould began a drug-investigation, questioning defendant about drug use and meeting with a person; Horn spoke with the passenger, Foster, who had suspicious behavior.
Horn requested a drug-detection dog; Miller arrived with the dog ~18 minutes after the stop began; the dog sniff occurred after defendant and Foster were removed from the car for safety and sniffing.
The dog alerted to the car, leading to searches that uncovered heroin and related paraphernalia.
The trial court denied the suppression motion, and defendant was convicted of delivery of heroin; on appeal, the stop’s extension for the dog sniff was challenged under Article I, section 9.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether questions unrelated to the traffic stop unlawfully extended the stop	Rodgers/Kirkeby extension justified by suspicion	Questions prolonged the stop without reasonable suspicion	Unlawful extension if not reasonably related or justified
Whether deploying the drug-detection dog prolonged the stop	Dog sniff related to investigation; no prolongation	Dog deployment extended detention	Deployment prolonged the stop; error in denial of suppression
Whether there was an objectively reasonable suspicion that drugs were in the vehicle to justify the dog sniff	Reasonable suspicion based on prior drug conduct and paraphernalia	Past drug use does not establish present possession; insufficient	Insufficient objective suspicion; no present possession warranted dog sniff
Whether suppression is required for the evidence obtained after the dog sniff	Evidence remains from lawful stop up to dog deployment	Evidence obtained after unlawful extension must be suppressed	Suppression warranted for post-sniff evidence; reversal and remand
What is the proper remedy given the suppression ruling	All post-sniff evidence should be suppressed	Only the post-sniff evidence should be suppressed	Remand for suppression of evidence obtained after dog deployment

Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 (2010) (limits on extending a traffic stop for unrelated investigations)
State v. Hall, 238 Or App 75 (2010) (traffic-stop authority related to violations and investigations)
State v. Maciel, 254 Or App 530 (2013) (reasonable-suspicion standards in traffic-stop extensions)
State v. Frias, 229 Or App 60 (2009) (past drug use alone does not support present possession suspicion)
State v. Holcomb, 202 Or App 73 (2005) (distinguishes past drug use from present possession in reasonable-suspicion analysis)
State v. Ehret, 184 Or App 1 (2002) (limitations on drug-suspicion in stop extensions)
State v. Holdorf, 355 Or 812 (2014) (limits on reasonable suspicion for possession when driver under stop)
State v. Kentopp, 251 Or App 527 (2012) (distinguishes suspicion of DUII from possession to justify stops)
State v. Kolb, 251 Or App 303 (2012) (rejected 'recent possession' theory for dog-detection rationales)
State v. Farrar, 252 Or App 256 (2012) (officer's questions must be tailored to stop scope)