State v. Hampton

When an officer obtains consent to search a vehicle during an lull in the traffic stop, the fact that the search occurs after the traffic stop is complete does constitute an extension of the initial stop.

Defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance based on the evidence obtained from a search of Defendant's vehicle during a traffic stop. At the traffic stop, Defendant had trouble locating his registration. While the officer waited, the officer asked for and received consent to search. Pre-trial, Defendant's motion to suppress was denied, without considering the merits, for failure to comply with the Uniform Trial Court Rules. Defendant appealed, arguing that the motion was sufficient to put the state on notice of his arguments. The state argued that any error was harmless because the evidence was ultimately admissible. The Court of Appeals stated that questioning that extends a traffic stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion. The Court concluded that when the officer asked for consent to search the car, the officer did not extend the stop in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution because it occurred during an unavoidable lull in the traffic stop while Defendant was looking for his registration. Affirmed.