State v. Oregon

A court should suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop when the officer obtained this evidence by extending the scope of the stop beyond that which reasonably relates to the traffic infraction.

Defendant appeals trial courts denial of his pretrial motion to suppress evidence. Defendant was driving when a police cruiser signaled Defendant to stop because of a traffic infraction. The officers suspected controlled-substance use after talking with Defendant. The officers requested that a drug-detection dog be brought to the scene to check Defendant’s car. The drug dog arrived 10 minutes after the request had been made and 18 minutes after Defendant had been stopped. The drug dog “alerted” to the car, indicating that controlled substances were present. The officers searched the car and found heroin and related paraphernalia. Before trial, Defendant moved to suppress any evidence that was obtained as a result of the alleged unlawful extension of the traffic stop; this motion was denied. Defendant appealed, and the Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress evidence obtained up until the time in which the drug dog was deployed. However, the Court held that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained after the time in which the drug dog was deployed because this action unlawfully prolonged the stop without objectively reasonable suspicion that drugs would be found. Reversed and remanded.