State v. Ankeny

The U.S. Supreme Court has reasoned that although “the officer lawfully stopped defendant for the purposes of investigation reasonably related to the apparent traffic infraction of operating a vehicle without license plates,” upon seeing the temporary permit, “the justification of any investigation was vitiated. Plain and simple, the officer had no statutory authority to proceed further. That authority ended with the officer’s discovery that the traffic infraction he was investigating had not actually occurred.” State v. Farley, 308 Or 91, 94 P2d 835 (1989).

Defendant appealed a judgment revoking his probation in two cases for violation of ORS 803.655, improper display of a permit. Defendant assigned error to the trial court for denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. On appeal, Defendant argued that the statute was inapplicable because his permit was visibly displayed on the car and therefore, the State could no longer establish that the officer had probable cause to proceed with the stop. The State contended that the statute requires officers to have the ability to see the permit by just following the vehicle. The U.S. Supreme Court has reasoned that although “the officer lawfully stopped defendant for the purposes of investigation reasonably related to the apparent traffic infraction of operating a vehicle without license plates,” upon seeing the temporary permit, “the justification of any investigation was vitiated. Plain and simple, the officer had no statutory authority to proceed further. That authority ended with the officer’s discovery that the traffic infraction he was investigating had not actually occurred.” State v. Farley, 308 Or 91, 94 P2d 835 (1989). The Court found that upon seeing and reading the permit, the Defendant sufficiently showed he was in compliance with the statute and the officer did not have probable cause to proceed with the traffic stop. Reversed and remanded.