State v. Swafford

“Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution requires a closer connection between the purpose of the stop and the questions an officer poses.” State v. Bradley, Or App 736, 741-43 (2023).

The State appealed an order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from an investigative stop of a hit and run. The state assigned error to the trial court, arguing that the officer’s questions regarding theft from the hatchery near the hit and run did not unlawfully extend the investigatory stop because there was a reasonable relationship between the questions and the stop. “Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution requires a closer connection between the purpose of the stop and the questions an officer poses.” State v. Bradley, Or App 736, 741-43 (2023). The Court reasoned here that the officer’s initial questions about the Defendant’s driving were permissible because they closely related to the investigation of the hit and run, but the officer’s later questions about the theft from the hatchery were beyond the scope of the stop. Therefore, the trial court was correct in granting Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. Affirmed.