State v. Watson
305 P.3d 94
Or.2013Background
- Officer Malek stopped Watson for crossing the yellow line; Malek issued a warning and requested license, registration, and insurance.
- Malek ran records and warrants checks (routine practice); dispatch returned results about 10 minutes later.
- While waiting, Malek asked Watson to exit the car and questioned him about rumors of drug dealing; Watson denied and refused consent to search.
- Deputy Ruble arrived, smelled marijuana from the partially open window; Malek corroborated the odor.
- A probation officer brought a drug‑detection dog, which alerted to the vehicle; Malek recovered a backpack containing marijuana, cocaine, and paraphernalia and arrested Watson.
- Watson moved to suppress; trial court denied; Court of Appeals affirmed; Oregon Supreme Court granted review and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Watson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of detaining driver to run records/warrants checks | Records and warrants checks are reasonably related to traffic investigation and officer safety; permissible if not unreasonably prolonged | Once facially valid documents are produced, further detention for checks is unrelated to traffic stop and requires additional reasonable suspicion | Verification of driving privileges by records check was reasonably related and 10‑minute detention not unreasonable; warrants check need not be decided because it did not cause suppression |
| Whether questioning about drugs and requesting exit/consent exceeded scope of stop | Officer may ask unrelated questions so long as they do not unreasonably prolong the stop; asking to exit and requesting consent was permissible contextually | Drug questioning and asking to step out transformed the stop into an unrelated criminal investigation without reasonable suspicion | Those interactions did not produce the incriminating evidence; Ruble’s independent odor observation provided reasonable suspicion that justified further investigation |
| Whether evidence should be suppressed as product of unconstitutional extension | State: evidence admissible because either actions were related to the stop, unrelated acts didn’t lead to evidence, or probable cause arose during the stop | Watson: evidence tainted because discovered during an unlawfully extended and intensified seizure; suppression required | Evidence not suppressed: discovery flowed from odor, admission, and dog alert which gave probable cause; earlier acts did not cause the incriminating discovery |
| Probable cause to search vehicle (automobile exception) | Probable cause existed based on two officers’ smell, defendant’s admission, and drug‑dog alert | Watson argued at trial the search lacked probable cause but did not press that on appeal | Court upheld implied trial‑court finding of probable cause; automobile exception justified warrantless search |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 (Oregon 2010) (police authority to detain motorist dissipates when investigation related to traffic infraction and identification is completed)
- State v. Fair, 353 Or 588 (Oregon 2013) (temporary detention of witness/victim lawful if reasonable belief of recent forcible offense and detention necessary to verify identity or obtain account)
- State v. Cloman, 254 Or 1 (Oregon 1969) (adopted Terry principles under Article I, section 9)
- State v. Owens, 302 Or 196 (Oregon 1986) (search incident to arrest limited by time, space, and intensity and must relate to the arrest)
- State v. Brown, 301 Or 268 (Oregon 1986) (describing automobile exception to warrant requirement)
- State v. Foster, 350 Or 161 (Oregon 2011) (properly trained drug‑detection dog alert can provide probable cause for search)