State v. Sarmento

To demonstrate that an officer’s less intrusive measures are “reasonably related to a traffic investigation and reasonably necessary to effectuate it, the state must present evidence that (1) the officer perceived a circumstance-specific danger and decided that [the action taken] was necessary to address that danger; and (2) the officer’s perception and decision were objectively reasonable.” State v. Jimenez, 357 Or 417, 430, 353 P3d 1227 (2015).

Defendant appealed her convictions for unlawful possession of heroin and unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, Defendant argued that officer unlawfully extended the traffic stop without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and that the extension was not justified by the “officer-safety exception” to the warrant requirement.  In response, the State argued that the officer’s actions were reasonably related to the traffic investigation and were justified by officer-safety concerns. To demonstrate that an officer’s less intrusive measures are “reasonably related to a traffic investigation and reasonably necessary to effectuate it, the state must present evidence that (1) the officer perceived a circumstance-specific danger and decided that [the action taken] was necessary to address that danger; and (2) the officer’s perception and decision were objectively reasonable.” State v. Jimenez, 357 Or 417, 430, 353 P3d 1227 (2015). The Court found that Defendant’s apparent attempt to hide something does not support an inference that she presented a safety concern under the officer-safety exception. The Court held that the officer did not have an objectively reasonable perception of danger and therefore, the officer extended the stop in violation of Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution. Reversed and remanded.