State v. T. T.

Officers must have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a “specific type of crime”; reasonable suspicion based on “nonspecific criminal activity” is not sufficient to initiate or extend a stop. State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 180-81, 389 P3d 1121 (2017).

Youth appealed the Juvenile Court’s finding that he was “within its jurisdiction for acts that would” have constituted drug offenses if committed by an adult.  Youth assigned error to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop.  On appeal, Youth argued that the officer could not have had objective reasonable suspicion a crime was being committed when he questioned Youth.  In response, the State argued that the circumstances—the short duration of a trip to Redding, California, in a rented car and a “strong order of green marijuana”—gave the officer reasonable suspicion to question Youth.  Officers must have reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a “specific type of crime”; reasonable suspicion based on “nonspecific criminal activity” is not sufficient to initiate or extend a stop.  State v. Maciel-Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 180-81, 389 P3d 1121 (2017).  At the time of the incident at issue, possession of any amount of marijuana was a violation of ORS 475B.227(2)—interstate transport of marijuana—if transported across state lines.  The Court found that, due to the legalization of marijuana in Oregon, the odor of marijuana was not enough to supply reasonable suspicion of a crime.  However, because the officer had reasonable suspicion of a crime that criminalized any amount of marijuana in a person’s possession, the Court held that the officer’s “subjective reasonable suspicion” was objectively reasonable.  Affirmed.