person for a traffic violation in Oregon

2013“In order to stop and detain a person for a traffic violation, an officer must have probable cause to believe that the person committed a violation.” State v. Boatright, 222 Or App 406, 409 , 193 P3d 78 , rev den, 345 Or 503 (2008) (citing ORS 810.410; State v. Matthews, 320 Or 398, 403 , 884 P2d 1224 (1994)).

2013“In order to stop and detain a person for a traffic violation, an officer must have probable cause to believe that the person committed a violation.” State v. Boatright, 222 Or App 406, 409 , 193 P3d 78 , rev den, 345 Or 503 (2008) (citing ORS 810.410; State v. Matthews, 320 Or 398, 403 , 884 P2d 1224 (1994)).

2025State v. Husk, 288 Or App 737 , 739, 407 P3d 932 , rev den, 362 Or 665 (2017).

2025State v. Husk, 288 Or App 737 , 739, Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 738 (2025) 741 407 P3d 932 , rev den, 362 Or 665 (2017).

2024Put another Cite as 334 Or App 34 (2024) 43 way, ORS 810.410(2) authorizes police to issue a citation for a traffic violation that is independent of the authority in ORS 810.410(3) to stop a person for certain purposes; former ORS 802.093 (2021) temporarily superseded an officer’s authority to issue a citation for the enumerated traffic offenses with- out disturbing their authority to stop and investigate those offenses.

2024Put another way, Cite as 334 Or App 34 (2024) 43 ORS 810.410(2) authorizes police to issue a citation for a traffic violation that is independent of the authority in ORS 810.410(3) to stop a person for certain purposes; former ORS 802.093 (2021) temporarily superseded an officer’s authority to issue a citation for the enumerated traffic offenses with- out disturbing their authority to stop and investigate those offenses.

2023In order to stop and detain a person for a traffic violation, an officer “must have probable cause to believe that the per- son has committed a violation.” State v. Rabanales-Ramos, 273 Or App 228, 234 , 359 P3d 250 (2015).

2023In order to stop and detain a person for a traffic violation, an officer “must have probable cause to believe that the per- son has committed a violation.” State v. Rabanales-Ramos, 273 Or App 228, 234 , 359 P3d 250 (2015).

2026After a hearing, the trial court concluded that the officer had probable cause to believe that defendant had committed the offense of care- less driving, a traffic violation, ORS 811.135, and denied the motion. “[T]o stop and detain a person for a traffic violation, an officer must have probable cause to believe that the per- son has committed a violation.” State v. Little, 326 Or App 788, 789 , 533 P3d 1107 (2023) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2026After a hearing, the trial court concluded that the officer had probable cause to believe that defendant had committed the offense of care- less driving, a traffic violation, ORS 811.135, and denied the motion. “[T]o stop and detain a person for a traffic violation, an officer must have probable cause to believe that the per- son has committed a violation.” State v. Little, 326 Or App 788, 789 , 533 P3d 1107 (2023) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2025State v. Husk, 288 Or App 737 , 739, Nonprecedential Memo Op: 345 Or App 738 (2025) 741 407 P3d 932 , rev den, 362 Or 665 (2017).

2024On the one hand, our case law is clear that, “[t]o stop and detain a person for a traffic violation,” Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution requires an officer to “have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a violation.” State v. Derby, 301 Or App 134, 138 , 455 P3d 1009 (2019).

2024On the one hand, our case law is clear that, “[t]o stop and detain a person for a traffic violation,” Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution requires an officer to “have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a violation.” State v. Derby, 301 Or App 134, 138 , 455 P3d 1009 (2019).

2024And probable cause requires that “the facts that the officer per- ceived, either personally or as relayed to the officer, must in fact satisfy the elements of [an offense].” State v. Lipka, 314 Or App 154, 164 , 498 P3d 811 , rev dismissed, 368 Or 703 (2021). “[W]hen the facts an officer perceives do not meet the essential elements of the violation, probable cause is lack- ing.” Id. at 165.

2024And probable cause requires that “the facts that the officer per- ceived, either personally or as relayed to the officer, must in fact satisfy the elements of [an offense].” State v. Lipka, 314 Or App 154, 164 , 498 P3d 811 , rev dismissed, 368 Or 703 (2021). “[W]hen the facts an officer perceives do not meet the essential elements of the violation, probable cause is lack- ing.” Id. at 165.

2022Nonprecedential Memo Op: 321 Or App 166 (2022) 169 of a person’s identity generally is reasonably related to the officer’s investigation of a traffic infraction.”); State v. Mock, 310 Or App 454, 462 , 485 P3d 295 (2021) (“Determining a person’s identity * * * [is] reasonably related to the purpose of a traffic stop, so long as those activities are not unreason- ably lengthy.”); see also ORS 810.410(3)(b) (“A police officer * * * [m]ay stop and detain a person for a traffic violation for the purposes of investigation * * *, identification and issu- ance of citation.” (Emphasis added.)).

2020ORS 810.410(2).1 In interpreting the statutory predecessor to ORS 810.410 (formerly ORS 484.353), the Oregon Supreme 1 ORS 810.410(2) provides: “A police officer may issue a citation to a person for a traffic violation at any place within or outside the jurisdictional authority of the governmental unit by which the police officer is authorized to act: “(a) When the traffic violation is committed in the police officer’s pres- ence; or Cite as 307 Or App 457 (2020) 473 Court stated that “[n]o logic supports an interpretation that would authorize the officer to detain a person to investigate a tr

2020ORS 810.410(2).1 In interpreting the statutory predecessor to ORS 810.410 (formerly ORS 484.353), the Oregon Supreme 1 ORS 810.410(2) provides: “A police officer may issue a citation to a person for a traffic violation at any place within or outside the jurisdictional authority of the governmental unit by which the police officer is authorized to act: “(a) When the traffic violation is committed in the police officer’s pres- ence; or Cite as 307 Or App 457 (2020) 473 Court stated that “[n]o logic supports an interpretation that would authorize the officer to detain a person to investigate a tr

2020ORS 810.410(2).1 In interpreting the statutory predecessor to ORS 810.410 (formerly ORS 484.353), the Oregon Supreme 1 ORS 810.410(2) provides: “A police officer may issue a citation to a person for a traffic violation at any place within or outside the jurisdictional authority of the governmental unit by which the police officer is authorized to act: “(a) When the traffic violation is committed in the police officer’s pres- ence; or Cite as 307 Or App 457 (2020) 473 Court stated that “[n]o logic supports an interpretation that would authorize the officer to detain a person to investigate a tr

2019Tiffin, 202 Or App at 203 .

2013In order to have probable cause, the officer “must subjectively believe that a violation occurred and * * * the officer’s belief must be objectively reasonable.” Id. (citing State v. Miller, 345 Or 176, 186 , 191 P3d 651 (2008)).

2013In order to have probable cause, the officer “must subjectively believe that a violation occurred and * * * the officer’s belief must be objectively reasonable.” Id. (citing State v. Miller, 345 Or 176, 186 , 191 P3d 651 (2008)).

2013“In order to stop and detain a person for a traffic violation, an officer must have probable cause to believe that the person committed a violation.” State v. Boatright, 222 Or App 406, 409 , 193 P3d 78 , rev den, 345 Or 503 (2008) (citing ORS 810.410; State v. Matthews, 320 Or 398, 403 , 884 P2d 1224 (1994)).

2013“In order to stop and detain a person for a traffic violation, an officer must have probable cause to believe that the person committed a violation.” State v. Boatright, 222 Or App 406, 409 , 193 P3d 78 , rev den, 345 Or 503 (2008) (citing ORS 810.410; State v. Matthews, 320 Or 398, 403 , 884 P2d 1224 (1994)).

2013“In order to stop and detain a person for a traffic violation, an officer must have probable cause to believe that the person committed a violation.” State v. Boatright, 222 Or App 406, 409 , 193 P3d 78 , rev den, 345 Or 503 (2008) (citing ORS 810.410; State v. Matthews, 320 Or 398, 403 , 884 P2d 1224 (1994)).

2011“The possibility that there may be a noncriminal explanation for the facts observed or that the officer’s suspicion will turn out to be wrong does not defeat the reasonableness of the suspicion.” State v. Kolendar, 100 Or App 319, 323 , 786 P2d 199 , rev den, 309 Or 698 (1990). *128 Under ORS 810.410(3)(b), a police officer may “stop and detain a person for a traffic violation for the purposes of investigation reasonably related to the traffic violation, identification and issuance of citation.” Here, the court found, and the parties agree, that the initial stop was lawful.

2011“The possibility that there may be a noncriminal explanation for the facts observed or that the officer’s suspicion will turn out to be wrong does not defeat the reasonableness of the suspicion.” State v. Kolendar, 100 Or App 319, 323 , 786 P2d 199 , rev den, 309 Or 698 (1990). *128 Under ORS 810.410(3)(b), a police officer may “stop and detain a person for a traffic violation for the purposes of investigation reasonably related to the traffic violation, identification and issuance of citation.” Here, the court found, and the parties agree, that the initial stop was lawful.

2010Or Laws 1997, ch 866, §§ 4, 5. [4] We reject the state's argument that this court's decision in State v. Jackson, 296 Or. 430 , 677 P.2d 21 (1984), stands for the rule that a de minimis delay during a traffic violation investigation does not, under any circumstances, violate an individual's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under Article I, section 9.

2010Or Laws 1997, ch 866, §§ 4, 5. [4] We reject the state's argument that this court's decision in State v. Jackson, 296 Or. 430 , 677 P.2d 21 (1984), stands for the rule that a de minimis delay during a traffic violation investigation does not, under any circumstances, violate an individual's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under Article I, section 9.

2008The court rejected that argument, observing that “the key provisions in ORS 810.410 provide that an officer may not arrest a person for a traffic violation and that the interlude of detention when a person is stopped must be no longer than necessary to investigate the violation, assure the driver’s identity, and issue the citation. * * * None of those provisions makes the process criminal, in constitutional terms.” Warner, 342 Or at 373 .

2006Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, 655 , 81 S Ct 1684 , 6 L Ed 2d 1081 (1961).

2006Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643, 655 , 81 S Ct 1684 , 6 L Ed 2d 1081 (1961).

2005State v. Wright, 152 Or App 282, 285 , 954 P2d 809 , rev den, 327 Or 448 (1998).

2005State v. Wright, 152 Or App 282, 285 , 954 P2d 809 , rev den, 327 Or 448 (1998).

2002On January 23, 2001, defendant submitted a supplemental memorandum to the court, asserting, among other arguments, that State v. Pepper, 105 Or App 107 , 803 P2d 1213 (1990), supported dismissal of the case, because nothing in the record indicated that Johnson had suspected that defendant had committed a felony. 6 The trial court concluded that Johnson’s stop and citation of defendant was authorized under ORS 810.410(2), providing in part that a police officer “may issue a citation to *540 a person for a traffic violation at any place within or outside the jurisdictional authority of the gover

2002On January 23, 2001, defendant submitted a supplemental memorandum to the court, asserting, among other arguments, that State v. Pepper, 105 Or App 107 , 803 P2d 1213 (1990), supported dismissal of the case, because nothing in the record indicated that Johnson had suspected that defendant had committed a felony. 6 The trial court concluded that Johnson’s stop and citation of defendant was authorized under ORS 810.410(2), providing in part that a police officer “may issue a citation to *540 a person for a traffic violation at any place within or outside the jurisdictional authority of the gover

1991State v. Porter, 312 Or. 112, 120 , 817 P.2d 1306 (1991).

1991State v. Porter, 312 Or. 112, 120 , 817 P.2d 1306 (1991).