OR: Continuing stop that led to a patdown was unreasonable

Defendant was stopped for a traffic offense, but the officer was more concerned about the passenger being involved in identity theft. After the traffic offense was resolved and the passenger was going to drive, the officer got consent to a patdown without reasonable suspicion that led to finding brass knuckles and methamphetamine. “In sum, even if we assume that the officers lawfully extended the stop to investigate the passenger’s involvement in the identity theft, once that investigation ended and the officers were prepared to give defendant his citation, the officers violated Article I, section 9, when they did not issue the citation and instead continued to seize defendant without justification. Because the state has not shown, under the totality of the circumstances, that defendant’s consent to search was only tenuously related to that misconduct, the illegality tainted that consent search and the subsequent searches of the car and the bag found therein. The trial court therefore erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress.” State v. Kuschnick, 269 Or. App. 198 (February 19, 2015).

This case is a discussion of the jury instructions in a police criminal excessive force case. SOPs are inadmissible because of binding precedent in the circuit. United States v. Rodella, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19605 (D.N.M. February 6, 2015).*