Oregon Supreme Court, November 15, 2019
From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
by: Rankin Johnson • November 17, 2019 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> SEARCH AND SEIZURE — Scope of stop </summary> Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA '''SEARCH AND SEIZURE — Scope of stop''' Police officers cannot ask qu...") |
|||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
'''SEARCH AND SEIZURE — Scope of stop''' | '''SEARCH AND SEIZURE — Scope of stop''' | ||
− | Police officers cannot ask questions about unrelated matters during ordinary traffic stop without an independent constitutional justification. Reversed. | + | Police officers cannot ask questions about unrelated matters during ordinary traffic stop without an independent constitutional justification. Reversed and remanded. |
The court explained that Article I, section 9 includes a subject-matter limitation, in addition to a temporal one. | The court explained that Article I, section 9 includes a subject-matter limitation, in addition to a temporal one. |
Latest revision as of 20:58, November 18, 2019
Summarized by Rankin Johnson, OCDLA
SEARCH AND SEIZURE — Scope of stop
Police officers cannot ask questions about unrelated matters during ordinary traffic stop without an independent constitutional justification. Reversed and remanded.
The court explained that Article I, section 9 includes a subject-matter limitation, in addition to a temporal one.
Garrett, dissenting, would have held that only a temporal limitation was included in Article I, section 9.
State v. Arreola-Botello 365 Or 695 (November 15, 2019) (Nelson, Garrett dissenting) (Washington County, Bailey)