OR: Show of authority after ticket should have been written made stop unreasonable

Defendant should have been cited and released, but the officer kept asking questions, and that unreasonably extended the stop. State v. Rodgers, 347 Ore. 610, 227 P.3d 695 (2010):

Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the deputy’s show of authority that accompanied his request that defendant consent to a patdown and subsequent request that defendant consent to an examination of the contents of defendant’s pockets occurred after the point that defendant should have been issued a citation or sent on his way. Because the deputy’s further detention of defendant was a significant limitation on defendant’s freedom of movement and was not justified by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, defendant Kirkeby was unlawfully seized in violation of Article I, section 9.

The officer had probable cause to arrest for a felony, and that permitted a search incident of the defendant’s person. State v. Ralph, 2010 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 102 (February 10, 2010).*

Defendant’s detention as a passenger was incidental to the stop of the driver, and it was not unreasonably long. He consented to a search of his eyeglasses case. State v. Hurt, 2010 UT App 33, 127 P.3d 271, 649 Utah Adv. Rep. 54 (2010).*

The record supports that the defendant consented to a search of her home. “Moreover, we agree with the district court that the mere presence of several police cars and four officers outside Kelley’s home was insufficient to call into question the voluntariness of Tanya’s consent to search.” United States v. Kelley, 594 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2010).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.