OR: Questions beyond purpose of stop without reasonable suspicion are unlawful

Asking the defendant for consent to search for weapons was not related to the purpose of the stop, so the search was unlawful. State v. Kirkeby, 220 Ore. App. 177, 185 P.3d 510 (2008):

This case is controlled by Rodgers. At the point at which Steele asked defendant for permission to search him, Steele testified that, although he had defendant’s name, date of birth, and driver license number, he “probably” did not have everything he needed to issue defendant a citation because he did not have defendant’s proof of insurance and vehicle registration information. However, even if that information was essential for the issuance of a traffic citation, there is nothing in the record to indicate that Steele asked defendant for those items or was waiting for defendant to retrieve them, nor that he was engaged in any other steps related to the investigation of the traffic offense. Thus, the request for consent to search defendant did not occur “during an unavoidable lull in the investigation.” Rodgers, 219 Ore. App. at 372.

Instead of asking defendant for that information–a logical next step in processing the infraction–Steele proceeded down an unrelated path, that is, he asked defendant for permission to pat him down. That, in turn, led Steele to ask defendant for consent to examine the items that Steele felt during the patdown, and, ultimately, for consent to look inside one of those items. Those actions, which were unrelated to the basis for the traffic stop, unlawfully extended the duration of the traffic stop in violation of Article I, section 9.