State v. Kamph

“[T]he ‘critical question’ that must be asked in determining whether the [dog] sniff violates the Fourth Amendment is whether the sniff ‘adds time to’ the [traffic] stop.” State v. Rosales, 291 Or. App. 762, 769, 423 P3d 112 (2018) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1616, 191 L. Ed. 2d 492 (2015).

Defendant appealed a conviction of possession of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, Defendant argued that, under the Fourth Amendment, the traffic stop was unlawfully extended when a drug dog sniffed the outside of the vehicle. In response, the State argued that the Fourth Amendment issue was not preserved at trial, but the State did not address the merits of the argument. “[T]he ‘critical question’ that must be asked in determining whether the [dog] sniff violates the Fourth Amendment is whether the sniff ‘adds time to’ the [traffic] stop.” State v. Rosales, 291 Or. App. 762, 769, 423 P3d 112 (2018) (quoting Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609, 1616, 191 L. Ed. 2d 492 (2015). The Court held that the trial court insufficiently addressed the Fourth Amendment issue because the trial court’s factual findings did not resolve the question of whether the dog sniff added time to the initial traffic stop.

Vacated and remanded.