OR: Apparently the state needs a photograph of a cracked windshield to justify stop on that basis

A stop based on a cracked windshield was not shown to be valid by the state. “The difficulty for the state’s position is that there is insufficient evidence about the nature of the crack to conclude that McKay’s observations made it objectively reasonable to believe that the windshield created the probable risk of harm or loss necessary to establish a violation of ORS 815.020. ‘[W]hether a windshield crack poses a danger depends on the characteristics of the crack.’ Stookey, 255 Ore. App at 499. The only information adduced about the crack at the motion to suppress hearing that distinguished this crack from the one in Stookey was that there was ‘some spiderwebbing’ of the crack.” [Apparently the state needs a picture of the cracked windshield.] The stop led to finding defendant’s DL was suspended. State v. Anderson, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 1368 (November 14, 2013).*