State v. Miller, 370 P.3d 882

Around 12:30 a.m. officer followed and then parked behind defendant after defendant pulled over; officer initiated a DUII investigation based on brief pause at a green light and observations of slurred speech and watery eyes.
Defendant provided identification and volunteered to take field sobriety tests (FSTs); officer ran a records check and learned defendant had a valid concealed handgun license (CHL).
After learning of the CHL, the officer asked if defendant had a firearm; defendant denied a firearm but disclosed a knife in his boot; the officer removed two knives and continued FSTs, concluding defendant was not impaired.
Officer cited defendant for carrying a concealed weapon; defendant moved to suppress evidence derived from the weapons inquiry as an unlawful extension of the DUII stop under Article I, §9 of the Oregon Constitution.
Trial court denied the motion; defendant entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the suppression ruling.
On appeal the court reversed: it held the weapons question was not supported by circumstance-specific, objectively reasonable safety concerns and therefore unlawfully extended the stop.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the officer’s question about weapons during a DUII stop was reasonably related to the stop (i.e., whether it unlawfully extended the seizure under Article I, §9)	Weapons inquiry was related to the DUII investigation and necessary for officer safety before administering FSTs, especially after records check showing a CHL	No circumstance-specific, articulable suspicion that defendant posed a danger; defendant was cooperative, nonthreatening, and CHL alone does not indicate dangerousness	The inquiry was not justified by circumstance-specific, reasonable safety concerns and therefore unlawfully extended the stop; reversal and remand
Whether a concealed handgun license alone supports a reasonable, circumstance-specific suspicion of danger justifying a weapons inquiry	CHL provides particularized information that reasonably supports asking about weapons before FSTs	CHL is not evidence of dangerousness—applicants undergo background checks and many disqualifying conditions preclude a CHL; CHL alone does not create reasonable suspicion	CHL alone is insufficient; possession of a CHL did not make the officer’s inquiry objectively reasonable under Jimenez

State v. Jimenez, 357 Or 417 (2015) (weapons inquiry during traffic stop permissible only when officer has reasonable, circumstance-specific safety concerns and decision is objectively reasonable)
State v. Bates, 304 Or 519 (1987) (patdown/search for weapons requires reasonable, specific suspicion of immediate threat)
State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 (2010) (officer may not extend stop to investigate unrelated matters absent independent justification)
State v. Kimmons, 271 Or App 592 (2015) (suppression required where state fails to justify extension of stop)
State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297 (2010) (distinguishes mere conversation, stops, and arrests under Article I, §9)