State v. Barber

Mere acquiescence occurs when an individual is not given a reasonable opportunity to choose to consent or when he or she is informed that a search will occur regardless of whether consent is given.

Defendant appealed the trial court’s judgment convicting him of one count of possession of heroin. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during an extension of a traffic stop. Defendant argued that the extended traffic stop violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution because it was not supported by reasonable suspicion that Defendant possessed drugs. Alternatively, Defendant argued that the evidence should have been suppressed because his consent to the search was involuntary and that he merely acquiesced. The Court held that the officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the extended traffic stop. The Court also held that Defendant gave his consent to a search of the car and that the perceived "threat" of searching the car eventually, after bringing a drug dog to investigate, was not unduly coercive. The Court held that Defendant’s consent was not tainted by an illegal threat and was not given involuntarily. Affirmed.