OR: Delaying the purposes of a stop made it unreasonable

Stop exceeded the time necessary to effect its purposes, so the stop became unreasonable unless there is reasonable suspicion. State v. Rodgers, 219 Ore. App. 366, 182 P.3d 209 (2008):

The foregoing authorities stand for the proposition that, although an officer is free to question a motorist about matters unrelated to the traffic infraction during an unavoidable lull in the investigation, such as while awaiting the results of a records check, that officer is not similarly free to question the motorist about unrelated matters as an alternative to going forward with the next step in processing the infraction, such as the writing or issuing of a citation. When an officer has all of the information necessary to issue a citation but instead delays in processing it or in telling the motorist that he or she is free to go, the stop is no longer lawful unless the officer has reasonable suspicion of further criminal activity.

Florida statute that requires that warrants be served by the person named in the directions to search was violated here and required suppression. The statute has always been strictly construed. State v. Hill, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 5518 (4th DCA April 16, 2008).

Shots fired from an apartment justified the police entry, and appellant and others were patted down for weapons. Appellant later voluntarily consented to a search of the person. Watson v. State, 979 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. App. 1st DCA 2008).*

Ten month old information in child porn search warrant affidavit was not too stale because child porn tends to be kept and has enduring value to the acquirer. It is not transient like small quantities of drugs, where staleness is more easily found. Mehring v. State, 884 N.E.2d 371 (Ind. App. 2008).*