Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rodgersgreen2 sentences2024State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 709 , 451 P3d 939 (2019) (“Article I, section 9, permits brief traffic stops to investigate unlawful, noncrim- inal activity when the stops are of limited scope.”); State v. Watson, 353 Or 768, 775 , 305 P3d 94 (2013) (explaining that the traffic stop of the defendant “was lawful at its inception” because the officer “had probable cause to believe that [the] defendant had committed a noncriminal traffic violation” and “Article I, section 9, permitted [the officer] to stop and detain [the] defendant briefly for purposes of investigation” (footnote omitted)) 2024State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 709 , 451 P3d 939 (2019) (“Article I, section 9, permits brief traffic stops to investigate unlawful, noncrim- inal activity when the stops are of limited scope.”); State v. Watson, 353 Or 768, 775 , 305 P3d 94 (2013) (explaining that the traffic stop of the defendant “was lawful at its inception” because the officer “had probable cause to believe that [the] defendant had committed a noncriminal traffic violation” and “Article I, section 9, permitted [the officer] to stop and detain [the] defendant briefly for purposes of investigation” (footnote omitted)) | 4 | 14 |
State v. Arreola-Botellogreen2 sentences2024State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 709 , 451 P3d 939 (2019) (“Article I, section 9, permits brief traffic stops to investigate unlawful, noncrim- inal activity when the stops are of limited scope.”); State v. Watson, 353 Or 768, 775 , 305 P3d 94 (2013) (explaining that the traffic stop of the defendant “was lawful at its inception” because the officer “had probable cause to believe that [the] defendant had committed a noncriminal traffic violation” and “Article I, section 9, permitted [the officer] to stop and detain [the] defendant briefly for purposes of investigation” (footnote omitted)) 2024State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 709 , 451 P3d 939 (2019) (“Article I, section 9, permits brief traffic stops to investigate unlawful, noncrim- inal activity when the stops are of limited scope.”); State v. Watson, 353 Or 768, 775 , 305 P3d 94 (2013) (explaining that the traffic stop of the defendant “was lawful at its inception” because the officer “had probable cause to believe that [the] defendant had committed a noncriminal traffic violation” and “Article I, section 9, permitted [the officer] to stop and detain [the] defendant briefly for purposes of investigation” (footnote omitted)) | 2 | 3 |
State v. Macielgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Maciel, 254 Or App 530 , 295 P3d 145 (2013) (where original and emergent purposes for traffic stop were supported by reasonable suspicion of speeding and possessing a stolen vehicle, officers unlawfully detained the defendant to investigate drug offenses without reasonable suspicion); State v. Kentopp, 251 Or App 527 , 284 P3d 564 (2012) (police unlawfully extended traffic stop to investigate drug possession, even assuming that the police reasonably suspected the defendant of other crimes including car theft and attempting to elude a police officer). 2015See, e.g., State v. Maciel, 254 Or App 530 , 295 P3d 145 (2013) (where original and emergent purposes for traffic stop were supported by reasonable suspicion of speeding and possessing a stolen vehicle, officers unlawfully detained the defendant to investigate drug offenses without reasonable suspicion); State v. Kentopp, 251 Or App 527 , 284 P3d 564 (2012) (police unlawfully extended traffic stop to investigate drug possession, even assuming that the police reasonably suspected the defendant of other crimes including car theft and attempting to elude a police officer). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pichardogreen2 sentences2014Accord State v. Pichardo, 263 Or App 1 , 326 P3d 624 (2014). 2014Accord State v. Pichardo, 263 Or App 1 , 326 P3d 624 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Watson
green
2 sentences2024State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 709 , 451 P3d 939 (2019) (“Article I, section 9, permits brief traffic stops to investigate unlawful, noncrim- inal activity when the stops are of limited scope.”); State v. Watson, 353 Or 768, 775 , 305 P3d 94 (2013) (explaining that the traffic stop of the defendant “was lawful at its inception” because the officer “had probable cause to believe that [the] defendant had committed a noncriminal traffic violation” and “Article I, section 9, permitted [the officer] to stop and detain [the] defendant briefly for purposes of investigation” (footnote omitted)) 2024State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or 695, 709 , 451 P3d 939 (2019) (“Article I, section 9, permits brief traffic stops to investigate unlawful, noncrim- inal activity when the stops are of limited scope.”); State v. Watson, 353 Or 768, 775 , 305 P3d 94 (2013) (explaining that the traffic stop of the defendant “was lawful at its inception” because the officer “had probable cause to believe that [the] defendant had committed a noncriminal traffic violation” and “Article I, section 9, permitted [the officer] to stop and detain [the] defendant briefly for purposes of investigation” (footnote omitted)) | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. O'Dell
neutral
2 sentences2019With probable cause, an officer may "lawfully stop a person for a noncriminal traffic violation to investigate the offense and issue a citation without a warrant." State v. O'Dell , 291 Or. 2019App. 359 , 362, 421 P.3d 417 (2018) (citing State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby , 347 Or. 610 , 623-24, 227 P.3d 695 (2010) ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Senin
neutral
1 sentence2019Defendant relies on two cases in advancing his contention that Weed issued the order as an alternative to Cite as 301 Or App 358 (2019) 363 proceeding with the traffic investigation and thereby unlaw- fully extended the stop. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Zin Min Aung
green
2 sentences2018State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby , 347 Or. 610 , 623-24, 227 P.3d 695 (2010). "[W]hether an officer unlawfully extends a stop depends on whether the officer makes [an] unrelated inquiry instead of expeditiously proceeding with the steps necessary to complete the stop." State v. Aung , 265 Or.App. 374 , 379, 335 P.3d 351 , rev. den. , 356 Or. 575 , 342 P.3d 88 (2014) (emphasis in original). 2018State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby , 347 Or. 610 , 623-24, 227 P.3d 695 (2010). "[W]hether an officer unlawfully extends a stop depends on whether the officer makes [an] unrelated inquiry instead of expeditiously proceeding with the steps necessary to complete the stop." State v. Aung , 265 Or.App. 374 , 379, 335 P.3d 351 , rev. den. , 356 Or. 575 , 342 P.3d 88 (2014) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Holdorf
green
2 sentences2017The state concedes that Thompson lacked statutory authority to *576 seize an Oregon citizen to enforce a noncriminal traffic violation, but contends that such a statutory violation does not require the exclusion of evidence. 2 The state explains that ORS 136.432 precludes the exclusion of evidence for statutory violations unless exclusion is required by the state or federal constitutions, certain rules of evidence, or the rights of the press. 3 See State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610, 621 , 227 P3d 695 (2010) (holding evidence obtained when police exceed statutory authority not suppressible u 2017The state concedes that Thompson lacked statutory authority to *576 seize an Oregon citizen to enforce a noncriminal traffic violation, but contends that such a statutory violation does not require the exclusion of evidence. 2 The state explains that ORS 136.432 precludes the exclusion of evidence for statutory violations unless exclusion is required by the state or federal constitutions, certain rules of evidence, or the rights of the press. 3 See State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610, 621 , 227 P3d 695 (2010) (holding evidence obtained when police exceed statutory authority not suppressible u | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Kentopp
green
2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Maciel, 254 Or App 530 , 295 P3d 145 (2013) (where original and emergent purposes for traffic stop were supported by reasonable suspicion of speeding and possessing a stolen vehicle, officers unlawfully detained the defendant to investigate drug offenses without reasonable suspicion); State v. Kentopp, 251 Or App 527 , 284 P3d 564 (2012) (police unlawfully extended traffic stop to investigate drug possession, even assuming that the police reasonably suspected the defendant of other crimes including car theft and attempting to elude a police officer). 2015See, e.g., State v. Maciel, 254 Or App 530 , 295 P3d 145 (2013) (where original and emergent purposes for traffic stop were supported by reasonable suspicion of speeding and possessing a stolen vehicle, officers unlawfully detained the defendant to investigate drug offenses without reasonable suspicion); State v. Kentopp, 251 Or App 527 , 284 P3d 564 (2012) (police unlawfully extended traffic stop to investigate drug possession, even assuming that the police reasonably suspected the defendant of other crimes including car theft and attempting to elude a police officer). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Alvarado
green
2 sentences2013Accordingly, when a police officer has all of the information necessary to complete a traffic investigation but, instead of ending the encounter, “launch [es] an investigation into a matter that is unrelated to the infraction, [the officer has] unlawfully extended the stop.” State v. Alvarado, 257 Or App 612, 627 , 307 P3d 540 (2013). 2013Accordingly, when a police officer has all of the information necessary to complete a traffic investigation but, instead of ending the encounter, “launch [es] an investigation into a matter that is unrelated to the infraction, [the officer has] unlawfully extended the stop.” State v. Alvarado, 257 Or App 612, 627 , 307 P3d 540 (2013). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.