State v. Reyes Prado

“[P]robable cause is not a necessary prerequisite to asking a defendant for consent to perform field sobriety tests in the context of a DUII stop.” State v. Ramos, 149 Or. App. 269, 272 (1997) (emphasis in original). “In contrast, if an officer compels a defendant to participate in field sobriety tests, the officer must have probable cause, in conjunction with a recognized exception to the warrant requirement…to do so.” State v. Nagel, 320 Or 24 (1994).

The State appealed an order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence that was gathered during a traffic stop in which Defendant was asked to perform a field sobriety test due to the officer’s belief that he was driving under the influence of marijuana. The State argued that the trial court erred in applying a higher standard than required before the officer can ask a driver to consent to a field sobriety test. In response, Defendant argued the State failed to establish he voluntary consented to a field sobriety test. “[P]robable cause is not a necessary prerequisite to asking a defendant for consent to perform field sobriety tests in the context of a DUII stop.” State v. Ramos, 149 Or. App. 269, 272 (1997) (emphasis in original). “In contrast, if an officer compels a defendant to participate in field sobriety tests, the officer must have probable cause, in conjunction with a recognized exception to the warrant requirement…to do so.” State v. Nagel, 320 Or 24 (1994). The Court found that the officer’s observation of a bag of marijuana, the smell of marijuana, and Defendant’s red eyes and slowed reactions were in line with symptoms of intoxication from marijuana and supported the officer’s reasonable suspicion when he asked for Defendant’s consent to conduct the sobriety test. Reversed and remanded.