State v. Middleton

“A stop is a seizure that must be justified by reasonable suspicion that a crime or probable cause traffic infraction has been committed; a stop may last only as long as is reasonably required for the officer to complete an investigation.” State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 370-71, 182 P3d 209 (2008). “Incriminating evidence that police obtain during an unlawful extension of a stop is subject to suppression.” Id.

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for possession of heroin and possession of methamphetamine. Defendant asserted the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained after she was stopped for a traffic violation. Defendant argued that any search and seizure is required to be “reasonable” and the legislature has specifically set the contours of reasonable detention for violation ORS 807.570(1) by requiring police to detain a person “only for such time as reasonably necessary to investigate and verify the person’s identity.” In response, the State argued the officers did not violate ORS 807.570(4) by failing to release defendant because they had not actually verified her identity at the time and had probable cause that a crime had been committed under ORS 807.570(1)(b)(A). “A stop is a seizure that must be justified by reasonable suspicion that a crime or probable cause traffic infraction has been committed; a stop may last only as long as is reasonably required for the officer to complete an investigation.” State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 370-71, 182 P3d 209 (2008). “Incriminating evidence that police obtain during an unlawful extension of a stop is subject to suppression.” Id. The Court found that if the officers held Defendant for longer than reasonably necessary to “investigate and verify [her] identity,” in violation of Article 1, section 9 and held that the evidence obtained during that unlawful extension of the stop must be suppressed. Reversed and remanded.