OR: Asking for consent to a patdown does not unlawfully extend a stop

Asking for consent to a patdown does not unlawfully extend a stop. State v. Morfin-Estrada, 251 Ore. App. 158, 283 P.3d 378 (2012).*

Visiting an apartment suspected of drug activity, staying a short time, accompanied by a suspected drug user, and just being off probation for drugs was not reasonable suspicion. State v. Bertsch, 251 Ore. App. 128, 284 P.3d 502 (2012):

Here, the state points to the following facts: (1) defendant was observed visiting an apartment suspected of drug activity; (2) defendant left the apartment after only a short time; and (3) defendant was accompanied by a person who was known to associate with drug users and dealers. At the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress, [the officer] testified that he had also relied on the fact that defendant had recently completed probation for a drug offense because, based on his “training and experience,” he believed that “subjects who are just off probation for a controlled substance offense * * * will continue to use controlled substances.”

Those facts do not give rise to reasonable suspicion that defendant possessed drugs. We have repeatedly said that a person’s presence in a location associated with drug activity is insufficient to support an objectively reasonable belief that that person is himself or herself engaged in drug activity.