OR 9/10: four search and seizure cases

Officers had probable cause to believe drugs were in defendant’s car, and that permitted them to search a backpack found within the car. State v. Bennett, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1232 (September 10, 2014).

Despite remand, the court reaffirms suppression order for lack of valid consent. “We therefore readopt that portion of our opinion in Magana/Rivera in which we concluded that the search of the apartment was unlawful, 257 Ore. App. at 269-72, and we reverse and remand on that basis with respect to defendant.” State v. Magana, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1222 (September 10, 2014),* on remand from State v. Magana, 354 Ore. 837, 325 P.3d 738 (2014).

“The Article I, section 9, problem that we identified in Dennis was that the officer began making unrelated inquiries instead of processing the traffic citation. In short, Dennis stands for the unremarkable proposition that an officer unlawfully extends a traffic stop if the officer ceases to process the citation and instead, without justification, begins making inquiries unrelated to the traffic stop. It does not support defendant’s assertion that Article I, section 9, is implicated every time there is a delay in an officer’s processing of a traffic stop.” Here, after defendant’s license came back clean, the officer asked another officer to complete the citation while he went to talk to the defendant, getting his consent. This was not unreasonable. State v. Aung, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1227 (September 10, 2014).*

Defendant was stopped, was short tempered and angry, got tickets, and then sped away committing other traffic violations. It was objectively reasonable to stop him again leading to a valid DUII arrest. State v. Miller, 2014 Ore. App. LEXIS 1229 (September 10, 2014).*