State v. Sherriff

Under State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695 (2019) and for the purposes of Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, all activities conducted during a traffic stop are part of an ongoing seizure and must be reasonably related to the purpose of the traffic stop or grounded in an independent constitutional justification.

Defendant appealed convictions for delivery and possession of methamphetamine and felon in possession of a firearm.  On appeal, Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence collected during an automobile search.  Defendant argued that, under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, the search was not reasonably related to a citation for a cracked windshield and under State v. Juarez-Godinez, 326 Or 1 (1997), the unlawful seizure came before his denial to interest in the vehicle and, therefore, all evidence discovered in the car must be suppressed.  Originally relying on State v. Standish, 197 Or App 96, rev dismissed as improvidently allowed, 339 Or 450 (2005) to argue that Defendant’s denial of any connection to the car and its contents severed any constitutionally protected interest, the State now concedes that the case should be remanded to make additional determinations to resolve the motion.  Under State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 712 (2019), all investigative activities conducted during a traffic stop “are part of an ongoing seizure and are subject to both subject-matter and durational limitations.”  The Court agreed with Defendant, reasoning that the unlawful seizure did not fall within any identified exception to the warrant requirement and the search occurred before Defendant’s denial.  Thus, the Court held that the trial court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress.  Reversed and remanded.