State v. Williams

Defendant appealed a judgement of conviction for possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894(1). Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. On appeal, Defendant argued that by asking questions that were not related to either the traffic violations or the DUI investigation, and were not supported by reasonable suspicion, the Officer unlawfully extend the stop by asking him whether he possessed alcohol or drugs, and requesting consent to search the vehicle. In response, the State argued that the officers questions were reasonably related to the DUII investigation because the questions sought to uncover evidence of that crime. If the officer's questions or “request for consent was ‘reasonably related’ to the purpose of the detention, then the request did not extend the stop in violation of Article I, section 9.” State v. Pichardo, 360 Or 754, 759 (2017). The Court held that since the presence of alcohol or controlled substances in a vehicle is relevant evidence of the crime of driving under the influence of intoxicants, the officer’s questioning regarding the possession of alcohol and controlled substances were reasonably related to the DUII investigation. Affirmed.