State v. Campoverde

“[F]or the purposes of Article I, section 9, all investigative activities, including investigative inquiries, conducted during a traffic stop are part of an ongoing seizure and are subject to both subject-matter and durational limitations. Accordingly, an officer is limited to investigatory inquiries that are reasonably related to the purpose of the traffic stop or that have an independent constitutional justification.” State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 451 P3d 939 (2019).

Defendant appealed a conviction for possession of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. On appeal, Defendant argued that the arresting deputies' unlawfully expanded the scope of their investigation during the traffic stop by engaging in investigation unrelated to the nature of the stop. In response, the State argued that the review is not warranted because the challenged evidence was not obviously derivative of the alleged unlawful conduct. Defendant articulated that the unlawful conduct occurred when deputies requested consent to search his vehicle, and subsequently called Defendant’s probation officer. Defendant argued that these actions were unrelated to the origin of the stop, and thus an unlawful expansion of the scope of the stop. “[F]or the purposes of Article I, section 9, all investigative activities, including investigative inquiries, conducted during a traffic stop are part of an ongoing seizure and are subject to both subject-matter and durational limitations. Accordingly, an officer is limited to investigatory inquiries that are reasonably related to the purpose of the traffic stop or that have an independent constitutional justification.” State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 451 P3d 939 (2019). Accordingly, the Court determined that the arresting officers unlawfully expanded the scope of their search, thus violating Article I, section 9. Vacated and remanded.