OR: The officer has an obligation to communicate the end of the stop

Defendant’s stop was [state] unconstitutionally extended by the officer after the need for it ended, and his car was blocking defendant’s car, so the defendant did not feel free to leave. The officer offered to move the car, and the defendant didn’t say so, but that’s not determinative. State v. Peterson, 259 Or. App. 294, 313 P.3d 388 (2013):

The state finally argues that, when Connolly offered to move his patrol car, “[d]efendant did not ask Connolly to move his car.” We reject that argument because the obligation to unambiguously end traffic stops does not fall on citizens; it falls on law enforcement officials. See State v. Primeaux, 230 Or App 470, 476, 216 P3d 887 (2009), rev den, 349 Or 664 (2011) (state has the burden to prove that the original traffic stop had ended).

Thus, under the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that the continued interrogation of defendant was not justified by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, was unrelated to the traffic infraction, and significantly restricted defendant’s freedom of movement. By their conduct, the officers continued to detain defendant in an extended traffic stop, and defendant was unlawfully seized under Article I, section 9.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.