State v. Tapp, 393 P.3d 262

State Trooper Williams observed defendant driving east on US-20 with his mother (Sandra) following; Williams thought Sandra was weaving deliberately and possibly “baiting” to alert defendant of police presence.
Williams followed the two vehicles for ~17–20 minutes, requested backup, then stopped both cars after defendant failed to signal a lane change.
During the stop, Williams noted a messy car, cigarette smell, defendant’s nervousness, suspended license, and Peterson’s inconsistent license; Williams asked for consent to search and began questioning for drug trafficking.
Defendant later admitted marijuana was in Sandra’s car; officers found >60 pounds of marijuana in Sandra’s vehicle; Peterson later said they had purchased it in California.
Defendant moved to suppress evidence obtained after Williams began investigating drug trafficking, arguing Williams unlawfully extended the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion; the trial court denied the motion, convicted defendant, and defendant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Williams lawfully extended the traffic stop to investigate drug trafficking under Article I, §9	Williams’s observations (possible baiting, nervousness, messy car, suspended license, highway known for trafficking) provided reasonable suspicion to extend the stop	Williams lacked reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking when he shifted the stop to a drug investigation; extension therefore unlawful and evidence must be suppressed	The court held Williams did not have objectively reasonable suspicion to extend the stop for drug trafficking and erred in denying suppression; conviction reversed and remanded

State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163 (defendant’s subjective belief + objective-reasonableness framework for investigatory stops)
State v. Farrar, 252 Or App 256 (Article I, §9 prohibits extending a stop to unrelated questioning without reasonable suspicion)
State v. Maciel, 254 Or App 530 (factors like interstate travel and other commonplace indicators insufficient for drug-suspicion)
State v. Meza-Garcia, 256 Or App 798 (similar factors held insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion of drug activity)
State v. Miglavs, 337 Or 1 (distinguishing generalized/stereotypical information from specific training or recent experience)
State v. Valdez, 277 Or 621 (police instinct or experience alone cannot support reasonable suspicion absent remarkable activity)
State v. Pope, 150 Or App 457 (training-based beliefs insufficient without unusual corroborating behavior)
State v. Lovell, 233 Or App 381 (reasonable suspicion can evaporate with intervening facts or lack of corroboration)
State v. Kimmons, 271 Or App 592 (state bears burden to show attenuation; absence of argument requires suppression)