- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Evidence
- Date Filed: 05-26-2021
- Case #: A170565
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Aoyogi, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Tookey, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed the denial of a motion to suppress evidence resulting from a traffic stop where an officer circled the vehicle with a drug-detection dog that alerted to methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of her motion. On appeal, Defendant argued that the officer unlawfully expanded the scope of the traffic stop. In response, the State argued that the claim of error raised on appeal was unpreserved. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress stating evidence was obtained in an “unavoidable lull.” Police unlawfully expanded the scope of the traffic stop even though they did not unlawfully extend duration, this case is analogous to State v. Hallam, 307 Or App 796 (2020). The Oregon Court of Appeals performed a plain error review of Defendant’s case. The lower court plainly erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress on the grounds that evidence was obtained in an “unavoidable lull.” The Court did not address whether Defendant was seized at a relevant point for the purposes of Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution because there was not enough information on the record. REVERSED and REMANDED.