A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Oregon Supreme Court, November 15, 2019

From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search

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)