State v. McBride

“Under the unavoidable lull rule, whether an officer’s inquiry about a matter unrelated to the reasons for a traffic stop unlawfully extends the stop depends on whether the officer makes the inquiry instead of expeditiously proceeding with the steps necessary to complete the stop.” State v. Nims, 248 Or App 708, 713, 274 P3d 235, rev den, 352 Or 378 (2012).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for possession of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence discovered in the duration of a traffic stop. On appeal, Defendant argued that her motion should have been granted because the officer's questioning of Defendant at the time of the traffic stop unlawfully extended the traffic stop by waiting in line with the service net rather than using the computer in his patrol car to process Defendant’s information. In response, the State argued that the officer’s questioning of Defendant was lawful because it took  place  during  an  unavoidable  lull  in  the traffic stop. “Under  the  unavoidable  lull  rule,  whether  an  officer’s inquiry about a matter unrelated to the reasons for a traffic stop unlawfully extends the stop depends on whether the officer makes the inquiry instead of expeditiously proceeding with the steps necessary to complete the stop.” State v. Nims, 248 Or App 708, 713, 274 P3d 235, rev den, 352 Or 378 (2012). The Court held that the trial court did not err when it concluded that the officer did not unlawfully extend the traffic stop because the officer's questioning of Defendant took place during an unavoidable lull in the traffic stop. Affirmed.