479 P.3d 598
Or. Ct. App.2021Background
- Trooper stopped a rental car on I‑5 for speeding; vehicle had an adult driver (25) and two passengers who appeared under 21, including youth (backseat).
- When approaching, trooper smelled a strong odor of green (non‑smoked) marijuana from the vehicle; no marijuana was seen.
- Driver produced a rental agreement showing the car had been rented the day before at Portland; he initially said they had been in Redding a couple days but gave inconsistent answers and later admitted he had brought an ounce of marijuana from California.
- Trooper noticed air freshener/cologne, could not smell marijuana on the driver’s person, and suspected importation; he ordered the driver and passengers out, questioned them, then searched the car.
- Search revealed ~39 pounds of marijuana in the trunk and a pistol; youth had cash and was charged in juvenile court.
- Juvenile court denied youth’s suppression motion; on appeal youth challenged (1) the stop becoming a drug investigation at the initial travel questions, (2) reasonable suspicion to seize and question him later, and (3) probable cause for the automobile search. Appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the trooper convert the traffic stop into an unlawful drug investigation when he asked where they were coming from and how long they had been there? | Youth: those questions exceeded traffic‑stop subject‑matter limits under Article I, §9 and effectuated a seizure of passengers. | State: youth didn’t preserve that argument below; questions were justified by a lull and were related to the stop. | Not preserved; court refused plain‑error review and did not decide novel Arreola‑Botello issues. |
| 2. At the time trooper ordered driver and youth out, did he have reasonable suspicion to investigate a drug crime? | Youth: odor + rental receipt + inconsistent stories etc. did not create reasonable suspicion that juveniles possessed or were being furnished marijuana. | State: those facts, including travel to a source area and rental car, supported reasonable suspicion of importation/trafficking. | Yes—reasonable suspicion supported an investigation of importation (ORS 475B.227); possession‑by‑juvenile suspicion alone was not sufficient. |
| 3. Did the trooper have probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception? | Youth: odor and travel indicators were insufficient for probable cause; air freshener/cologne undermined probative value. | State: driver’s admission that he brought an ounce from California supplied probable cause to search for evidence of importation. | Yes—the driver’s admission plus other facts gave probable cause to search under the automobile exception. |
| 4. Does the Fourth Amendment analysis differ? | Youth: federal protections should bar the extended investigation absent reasonable suspicion. | State: under the Fourth Amendment, passengers are seized for the stop and reasonable suspicion analysis is less protective than Oregon law. | Same outcome: under federal law the extension was supported by reasonable suspicion; probable cause supported the search. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Arreola‑Botello, 365 Or. 695, 451 P.3d 939 (2019) (traffic‑stop investigative inquiries must be related to the stop’s purpose or independently justified under Article I, §9)
- State v. Maciel‑Figueroa, 361 Or. 163, 389 P.3d 1121 (2017) (reasonable‑suspicion must be particularized to a specific crime or type of crime)
- Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (1980) (drug‑courier profile factors cannot, by themselves, justify stops under Article I §9 reasoning adopted by Oregon courts)
- United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1 (1989) (Fourth Amendment permits aggregation of profile factors to support reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Smalley, 233 Or. App. 263, 225 P.3d 844 (2010) (prelegalization precedent treating marijuana odor as probative of contraband; court re‑evaluates weight after legalization)
- State v. Maciel, 254 Or. App. 530, 295 P.3d 145 (2013) (drug‑corridor/profile indicators given little weight absent additional particularized facts)
- State v. Bliss, 363 Or. 426, 423 P.3d 53 (2018) (automobile exception: mobility + probable cause to believe vehicle contains contraband)