State v. Urig

“[W]hether an officer unlawfully extends a stop depends on whether the officer makes [an] unrelated inquiry instead of expeditiously proceeding with the steps necessary to complete the stop.” State v. Aung, 265 Or App 374, 379, 335 P3d 351, rev den, 356 Or 575 (2014).

Defendant appealed convictions for various drug-related charges. Defendant assigned error to the denial of a motion to suppress evidence discovered during a traffic stop. On appeal, Defendant argued the traffic stop was unlawfully extended when the police officer called Defendant’s probation officer because the call was not reasonably related to the initial stop, the questioning did not occur during an unavoidable lull, nor was it supported by reasonable suspicion. The state responded that police officer found particularized information (a note directing any law enforcement to call the probation officer) during a routine information check. The state further argued the stop was not delayed because the call was simultaneous with the citation process. “[W]hether an officer unlawfully extends a stop depends on whether the officer makes [an] unrelated inquiry instead of expeditiously proceeding with the steps necessary to complete the stop.” State v. Aung, 265 Or App 374, 379, 335 P3d 351, rev den, 356 Or 575 (2014). The Court of Appeals determined the call did not delay the process of the citation and therefore, did not unlawfully extend the traffic stop. Affirmed.