State v. Moore, 488 P.3d 816

Oregon State Trooper Caldwell stopped Randall Moore for speeding on Highway 20 and approached the passenger side.
Caldwell smelled a "very strong" odor of unburnt/"green" marijuana coming from the vehicle; Caldwell testified he could not detect "very small, minute amounts" by smell.
Moore told Caldwell he had "less than an ounce" of marijuana in a small ceramic container on the passenger seat; he then opened it and Caldwell viewed what he recognized as marijuana and seized the container.
Based on his training and a cursory look, Caldwell estimated the amount was "well more than an ounce." Lab analysis later showed ~139.51 grams (~4.9 oz).
Moore moved to suppress evidence and statements, arguing the trooper unlawfully extended the traffic stop by asking about marijuana odor without reasonable suspicion; the trial court denied suppression, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, suppressing evidence obtained during the unlawful extension.
The court held that a "very strong" odor of unburnt marijuana alone (plus the trooper’s limited-smell testimony and Moore’s demeanor) did not create objectively reasonable suspicion that an unlawful quantity was present; a dissent would have affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trooper lawfully extended the traffic stop to investigate marijuana possession	Strong odor of marijuana, trooper's training/experience, inability to detect minute amounts, and defendant’s demeanor supported reasonable suspicion of unlawful quantity	Odor alone (even "very strong") and related facts were insufficient to reasonably suspect an unlawful amount and thus could not justify extending the stop	Reversed: odor + the proffered facts did not give objective reasonable suspicion to extend the stop to investigate illegal possession
Whether statements elicited during the extension must be suppressed	Statements were voluntary and admissible because investigation was justified	Statements were fruit of an unlawful extension and must be suppressed	Reversed: statements obtained during the unlawful extension must be suppressed
Whether trial court should have acquitted based on vehicle not being a "public place" (claimed plain error)	State proceeded on one-ounce public-place theory; no plain error shown	Moore argued vehicle did not qualify as public place and lawful threshold might be eight ounces	Rejected: defendant did not preserve the claim; court declined to find plain error

State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or. 695 (Or. 2019) (factual findings in suppression review govern; traffic-stop limits on unrelated questioning)
State v. T. T., 308 Or. App. 408 (Or. Ct. App. 2021) (odor of marijuana indicates some amount may be present but, post-legalization, odor alone rarely supports suspicion of unlawful quantity)
State v. Middleton, 294 Or. App. 596 (Or. Ct. App. 2018) (evidence obtained during unlawful extension of a stop is suppressible)
State v. Bowen, 308 Or. App. 505 (Or. Ct. App. 2021) (marijuana odor evidence may be insufficient where odor description and officer training are sparse)
State v. Hallam, 307 Or. App. 796 (Or. Ct. App. 2020) (extension of traffic stop to conduct criminal investigation requires reasonable suspicion)
State v. Robinson, 310 Or. App. 644 (Or. Ct. App. 2021) (combination of facts including a "very strong" fresh marijuana odor supported reasonable suspicion in that case)
State v. Rodgers, 219 Or. App. 366 (Or. Ct. App. 2008) (statements and evidence derived from unlawfully extended stops are subject to suppression)