OR: Detention during a protective sweep was appropriate, but continuing it was not; consent thereafter invalid

Detention of the defendant, lawful during a protective sweep, ostensibly for officer safety, unjustifiably continued thereafter, and defendant’s consent during that unlawful detention was invalid. State v. Hitchcock, 224 Ore. App. 77, 197 P.3d 33 (2008):

Applying those principles here, the detention of Winters continued after the protective sweep and Henson’s arrest and after dissipation of concerns for officer safety. The police continued the questioning of the occupants and asked them for identification. Hitchcock remained handcuffed. Winters was asked if the interrogation could continue in her bedroom. She was not expressly or implicitly advised that she was free to go or that she could refuse to answer any questions. The continued questioning of Winters, both in the living room and in her bedroom, prolonged her detention.

“The threshold question we must answer is whether Officer Lappe had probable cause to stop Stroud’s car. During the eight-month investigation, the officers made observations and compiled 106 recorded conversations and numerous surveillance videos.” (You figure it out.) People v. Stroud, 2008 Ill. App. LEXIS 1134 (November 19, 2008).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.