State v. Reich, 403 P.3d 448

Officer Emerson and Officer Smith stopped a pickup for speeding; defendant was the driver, Curtis (passenger) was the registered owner and had a prior meth possession arrest.
Smith asked for license, registration, and proof of insurance; Curtis searched the glove box for insurance while officers waited.
While Curtis searched, Smith asked whether there was anything illegal in the vehicle; defendant became nervous, avoided eye contact, and did not answer initially.
Curtis consented to a vehicle search; both men exited the vehicle without being asked. Smith then asked defendant for consent to search his person; defendant consented and a search revealed methamphetamine and paraphernalia.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence as the traffic stop was unlawfully extended; the trial court denied the motion relying on the “unavoidable lull” doctrine and voluntary consent, and defendant conditionally pleaded guilty.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the search request unlawfully extended the stop because there was no reasonable suspicion and the request did not occur during an unavoidable lull.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion to justify searching defendant’s person	Officers had reasonable suspicion based on defendant’s nervousness, abrupt demeanor change after being asked about illegal items, and association with Curtis (prior meth possession)	Nervousness and association with a known user are insufficient; the totality of circumstances did not produce objective reasonable suspicion	No reasonable suspicion — officers’ belief that defendant possessed meth was not objectively reasonable under Maciel-Figueroa
Whether request to search defendant’s person occurred during an "unavoidable lull" in the traffic stop	The request occurred while officers were waiting for Curtis to find insurance, so the lull continued even after both men exited the vehicle; consent was voluntary and the lull justified unrelated questioning	Once Curtis stopped looking and both exited, the officers could have continued the traffic investigation (e.g., have Curtis resume, search for insurance, or run defendant’s license), so the lull ended and the request unlawfully extended the stop	Not an unavoidable lull — officers shifted to investigating an unrelated crime instead of expeditiously completing the traffic stop; extension was unlawful

State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163 (2017) (establishes reasonable-suspicion standard for investigative stops under Article I, § 9)
State v. Kimmons, 271 Or App 592 (2015) (summarizes law on unavoidable lull and limits on extending traffic stops)
Rodgers/Kirkeby v. State, 347 Or 610 (2010) (warrantless searches and seizures must meet Article I, § 9; traffic stop extensions require reasonable suspicion)
State v. Westcott, 282 Or App 614 (2016) (officers must have reasonable suspicion to investigate crimes unrelated to the traffic stop)
State v. Nims, 248 Or App 708 (2012) (defines "unavoidable lull" and prohibits using unrelated inquiries as an alternative to processing the traffic violation)
State v. Holdorf, 355 Or 812 (2014) (example where combination of factors supported reasonable suspicion to extend a stop)