State v. Gilkey

For the state to establish that a officer has not exceeded the scope of a stop, it must present evidence that (1) the officer perceived a circumstance-specific danger, and that perception was objectively reasonable, and (2) the officer decided that the questions asked were necessary to address that danger, and it is objectively reasonable that those questions would ameliorate or clarify the safety concern. Jimenez, 357 Or at 430.

Defendant was stopped for a traffic violation. Defendant appealed a conviction for one count of felon in possession of a firearm, ORS 166.270(1), and one count of unlawful possession of heroin, ORS 475.854(2)(b). On appeal, Defendant argued that the officer unlawfully extended the scope of the traffic stop when he inquired into the Defendant’s incarceration history. In response, the State argues that the temporal extension was lawful, as the inquires were permissible under the officer-safety doctrine. For the state to establish that the officer did not exceed the scope of the stop, it must present evidence that (1) the officer perceived a circumstance-specific danger, and  that perception was objectively reasonable, and (2) the officer decided that the questions asked were necessary to address that danger, and it is objectively  reasonable  that  those  questions  would  ameliorate or clarify the safety concern. Jimenez, 357 Or at 430. Here, the State failed to present evidence to satisfy the Jimenez test. As such, the Court determined that the officer-safety doctrine did not justify the extension of the stop. Reversed and remanded.