State v. South, 453 P.3d 592

Deputy Jewell stopped a dark green Jeep for an expired registration after the vehicle passed the deputy several times and did not immediately pull over.
When approached, defendant fidgeted, looked around the vehicle, and gave an expired license and an apparently altered insurance card.
Defendant volunteered that he had been arrested several days earlier for carrying a concealed handgun, and he displayed nervous, evasive behavior when questioned about weapons.
Jewell asked whether weapons were in the Jeep, received evasive "no guns" answers, returned to his patrol car to begin paperwork, then requested backup and asked for consent to search the vehicle; defendant consented.
The search uncovered ammunition-related items, a dagger, a glass pipe, and a baggie containing methamphetamine; defendant was charged and moved to suppress the evidence as the stop had been unlawfully extended.
The trial court denied suppression; on appeal the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the deputy’s weapons inquiry and request for consent were justified by circumstance-specific officer safety concerns and were objectively reasonable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the deputy unlawfully extended the traffic stop by asking about weapons and requesting consent to search under OR Const. art I, §9	Jewell (the State): questions and consent request were justified by circumstance‑specific officer safety concerns (failure to pull over, nervous conduct, recent handgun arrest, evasive answers, distraction while writing ticket)	South: the deputy’s questions and the request for consent unlawfully prolonged the stop, so evidence should be suppressed	The court held the deputy articulated circumstance‑specific safety concerns and that both the weapons inquiry and consent request were objectively reasonable; no unlawful extension.

State v. Jimenez, 357 Or 417 (2015) (two‑part test for weapons inquiries: officer must perceive circumstance‑specific danger and the perception/action must be objectively reasonable)
State v. Miller, 363 Or 374 (2018) (clarified that circumstance‑specific concerns may be general to the situation and that objective reasonableness is an independent legal inquiry)
State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 (2010) (distinguishes mere conversation, stops, and arrests under Article I, §9)
State v. Ashbaugh, 349 Or 297 (2010) (describes categories of encounters with police and when restraint becomes a seizure)
State v. Maciel‑Figueroa, 361 Or 163 (2017) (appellate review defers to trial court factual findings if supported by record)