14 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2022 2 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. Fairgreen2 sentences2017State v. Watson, 353 Or 768, 779 , 305 P3d 94 (2013) (describing the reasoning in State v. Fair, 353 Or 588 , 302 P3d 417 (2013)). 2017State v. Watson, 353 Or 768, 779 , 305 P3d 94 (2013) (describing the reasoning in State v. Fair, 353 Or 588 , 302 P3d 417 (2013)). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Rodgersgreen2 sentences2015See State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 , 227 P3d 695 (2010) (considering a similar issue). 2015See State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 , 227 P3d 695 (2010) (considering a similar issue). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Kleingreen2 sentences2013See State v. Klein, 234 Or App 523, 532 , 228 P3d 714 (2010) (holding that the expansion of an inquiry into matters about which an officer lacks reasonable suspicion extends the duration of a stop in violation of Article I, section 9). 2013See State v. Klein, 234 Or App 523, 532 , 228 P3d 714 (2010) (holding that the expansion of an inquiry into matters about which an officer lacks reasonable suspicion extends the duration of a stop in violation of Article I, section 9). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Amellgreen2 sentences2012Defendant relied on State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 372 , 182 P3d 209 (2008), aff'd sub nom State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 , 227 P3d 695 (2010), in which we ruled that an officer conducting a traffic stop “is free to question a motorist about matters unrelated to the traffic infraction during an unavoidable lull in the investigation, such as while awaiting the results of a records check,” but an officer “is not similarly free to question the motorist about unrelated matters as an alternative to going forward with the next step in processing the infraction, such as the writing or issuin 2012Defendant relied on State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 372 , 182 P3d 209 (2008), aff'd sub nom State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 , 227 P3d 695 (2010), in which we ruled that an officer conducting a traffic stop “is free to question a motorist about matters unrelated to the traffic infraction during an unavoidable lull in the investigation, such as while awaiting the results of a records check,” but an officer “is not similarly free to question the motorist about unrelated matters as an alternative to going forward with the next step in processing the infraction, such as the writing or issuin | 1 | 1 |
State v. Caldwellgreen2 sentences2008See State v. Crampton, 176 Or App 62, 72 , 31 P3d 430 (2001), overruled on other grounds by State v. Caldwell, 187 Or App 720 , 69 P3d 830 (2003), rev den, 336 Or 376 (2004) (holding that an officer’s inquiry into the presence of weapons, as authorized by ORS 810.410(3)(d), does not transform a police-citizen encounter into a separate stop in violation of Article I, section 9). 2008See State v. Crampton, 176 Or App 62, 72 , 31 P3d 430 (2001), overruled on other grounds by State v. Caldwell, 187 Or App 720 , 69 P3d 830 (2003), rev den, 336 Or 376 (2004) (holding that an officer’s inquiry into the presence of weapons, as authorized by ORS 810.410(3)(d), does not transform a police-citizen encounter into a separate stop in violation of Article I, section 9). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cramptongreen2 sentences2008See State v. Crampton, 176 Or App 62, 72 , 31 P3d 430 (2001), overruled on other grounds by State v. Caldwell, 187 Or App 720 , 69 P3d 830 (2003), rev den, 336 Or 376 (2004) (holding that an officer’s inquiry into the presence of weapons, as authorized by ORS 810.410(3)(d), does not transform a police-citizen encounter into a separate stop in violation of Article I, section 9). 2008See State v. Crampton, 176 Or App 62, 72 , 31 P3d 430 (2001), overruled on other grounds by State v. Caldwell, 187 Or App 720 , 69 P3d 830 (2003), rev den, 336 Or 376 (2004) (holding that an officer’s inquiry into the presence of weapons, as authorized by ORS 810.410(3)(d), does not transform a police-citizen encounter into a separate stop in violation of Article I, section 9). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Timothy Andrew Smith, Stephen Lawrence Swindellgreen1 sentence1990App. 21, 28 , 578 P.2d 790 (1978), that stated that evidence of other crimes discovered during a traffic stop should be excluded during a traffic stop if either "(1) the officer would have made the stop for that violation even if he did not suspect possible criminal activity and want to investigate further; or (2) the officer had grounds for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity which would justify a stop without regard to the traffic offense." State v. Tucker, supra, 286 Or. at 494 , 595 P.2d 1364 . [2] See, e.g., U.S. v. Trigg, 878 F.2d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir.1989); U.S. v. Guzman, 864 F.2d | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Jose Luis Guzman and Sonia Cruz-Lazogreen1 sentence1990App. 21, 28 , 578 P.2d 790 (1978), that stated that evidence of other crimes discovered during a traffic stop should be excluded during a traffic stop if either "(1) the officer would have made the stop for that violation even if he did not suspect possible criminal activity and want to investigate further; or (2) the officer had grounds for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity which would justify a stop without regard to the traffic offense." State v. Tucker, supra, 286 Or. at 494 , 595 P.2d 1364 . [2] See, e.g., U.S. v. Trigg, 878 F.2d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir.1989); U.S. v. Guzman, 864 F.2d | 1 | 1 |
United States v. William O. Trigggreen1 sentence1990App. 21, 28 , 578 P.2d 790 (1978), that stated that evidence of other crimes discovered during a traffic stop should be excluded during a traffic stop if either "(1) the officer would have made the stop for that violation even if he did not suspect possible criminal activity and want to investigate further; or (2) the officer had grounds for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity which would justify a stop without regard to the traffic offense." State v. Tucker, supra, 286 Or. at 494 , 595 P.2d 1364 . [2] See, e.g., U.S. v. Trigg, 878 F.2d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir.1989); U.S. v. Guzman, 864 F.2d | 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 sentences2015Specifically, relying on State v. Watson, 353 Or 768 , 305 P3d 94 (2013), the state reasons that questions that are reasonably related to a stop, by definition, do not extend the stop in violation of Article I, section 9. 2015Specifically, relying on State v. Watson, 353 Or 768 , 305 P3d 94 (2013), the state reasons that questions that are reasonably related to a stop, by definition, do not extend the stop in violation of Article I, section 9. | 4 | 2015–2017 |
State v. Pichardo
green
2 sentences2019If an officer's questions or "request for consent was 'reasonably related' to the purpose of the detention, then the request did not extend the stop in violation of Article I, section 9." State v. Pichardo , 360 Or. 754 , 759, 388 P.3d 320 (2017) (citations omitted). 2019If an officer's questions or "request for consent was 'reasonably related' to the purpose of the detention, then the request did not extend the stop in violation of Article I, section 9." State v. Pichardo , 360 Or. 754 , 759, 388 P.3d 320 (2017) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2017–2019 |
State v. Krieger
green
1 sentence2022Cite as 318 Or App 441 (2022) 445 Further, defendant argues that, because West did not have reasonable suspicion of DUII at the point those questions were asked, West illegally expanded the scope of the stop in violation of her Article I, section 9, rights. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. K. A. M.
green
2 sentences2021A. M., 361 Or 805, 810 , 401 P3d 774 (2017), “the stop inquiry requires an evaluation of the totality of the cir- cumstances,” and, as in K. 2021A. M., 361 Or 805, 810 , 401 P3d 774 (2017), “the stop inquiry requires an evaluation of the totality of the cir- cumstances,” and, as in K. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Pichardo
green
2 sentences2017State v. Pichardo, 263 Or App 1 , 326 P3d 624 (2014). 2017State v. Pichardo, 263 Or App 1 , 326 P3d 624 (2014). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Jimenez
neutral
2 sentences2015State v. Jimenez, 263 Or App 150, 154-55 , 326 P3d 1222 (2014). 2015State v. Jimenez, 263 Or App 150, 154-55 , 326 P3d 1222 (2014). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Jimenez
green
1 sentence2015Cite as 357 Or 417 (2015) 433 on State v. Watson, 353 Or 768 , 305 P3d 94 (2013), the state reasons that questions that are reasonably related to a stop, by definition, do not extend the stop in violation of Article I, section 9. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Jordan v. BELLEQUE
green
1 sentence2014“Police can conduct a stop for violation of a traffic offense if they have probable cause to believe that the offense has occurred and that belief is reasonable.” State v. Hall, 238 Or App 75, 78-79 , 241 P3d 757 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 664 (2011). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Hall
green
2 sentences2014“Police can conduct a stop for violation of a traffic offense if they have probable cause to believe that the offense has occurred and that belief is reasonable.” State v. Hall, 238 Or App 75, 78-79 , 241 P3d 757 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 664 (2011). 2014“Police can conduct a stop for violation of a traffic offense if they have probable cause to believe that the offense has occurred and that belief is reasonable.” State v. Hall, 238 Or App 75, 78-79 , 241 P3d 757 (2010), rev den, 349 Or 664 (2011). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Rodgers
green
2 sentences2012Defendant relied on State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 372 , 182 P3d 209 (2008), aff'd sub nom State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 , 227 P3d 695 (2010), in which we ruled that an officer conducting a traffic stop “is free to question a motorist about matters unrelated to the traffic infraction during an unavoidable lull in the investigation, such as while awaiting the results of a records check,” but an officer “is not similarly free to question the motorist about unrelated matters as an alternative to going forward with the next step in processing the infraction, such as the writing or issuin 2012Defendant relied on State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 372 , 182 P3d 209 (2008), aff'd sub nom State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 , 227 P3d 695 (2010), in which we ruled that an officer conducting a traffic stop “is free to question a motorist about matters unrelated to the traffic infraction during an unavoidable lull in the investigation, such as while awaiting the results of a records check,” but an officer “is not similarly free to question the motorist about unrelated matters as an alternative to going forward with the next step in processing the infraction, such as the writing or issuin | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Kirkeby
green
2 sentences2012Defendant relied on State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 372 , 182 P3d 209 (2008), aff'd sub nom State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 , 227 P3d 695 (2010), in which we ruled that an officer conducting a traffic stop “is free to question a motorist about matters unrelated to the traffic infraction during an unavoidable lull in the investigation, such as while awaiting the results of a records check,” but an officer “is not similarly free to question the motorist about unrelated matters as an alternative to going forward with the next step in processing the infraction, such as the writing or issuin 2012Defendant relied on State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366, 372 , 182 P3d 209 (2008), aff'd sub nom State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or 610 , 227 P3d 695 (2010), in which we ruled that an officer conducting a traffic stop “is free to question a motorist about matters unrelated to the traffic infraction during an unavoidable lull in the investigation, such as while awaiting the results of a records check,” but an officer “is not similarly free to question the motorist about unrelated matters as an alternative to going forward with the next step in processing the infraction, such as the writing or issuin | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Matthews
green
2 sentences2010State v. Matthews, 320 Or 398, 402 , 884 P2d 1224 (1994). 2010State v. Matthews, 320 Or 398, 402 , 884 P2d 1224 (1994). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Toevs
green
2 sentences2004State v. Toevs, 327 Or 525, 531 , 964 P2d 1007 (1998). 2004State v. Toevs, 327 Or 525, 531 , 964 P2d 1007 (1998). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Tucker
green
2 sentences1990App. 21, 28 , 578 P.2d 790 (1978), that stated that evidence of other crimes discovered during a traffic stop should be excluded during a traffic stop if either "(1) the officer would have made the stop for that violation even if he did not suspect possible criminal activity and want to investigate further; or (2) the officer had grounds for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity which would justify a stop without regard to the traffic offense." State v. Tucker, supra, 286 Or. at 494 , 595 P.2d 1364 . [2] See, e.g., U.S. v. Trigg, 878 F.2d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir.1989); U.S. v. Guzman, 864 F.2d 1990App. 21, 28 , 578 P.2d 790 (1978), that stated that evidence of other crimes discovered during a traffic stop should be excluded during a traffic stop if either "(1) the officer would have made the stop for that violation even if he did not suspect possible criminal activity and want to investigate further; or (2) the officer had grounds for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity which would justify a stop without regard to the traffic offense." State v. Tucker, supra, 286 Or. at 494 , 595 P.2d 1364 . [2] See, e.g., U.S. v. Trigg, 878 F.2d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir.1989); U.S. v. Guzman, 864 F.2d | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Carter
green
2 sentences1990App. 21, 28 , 578 P.2d 790 (1978), that stated that evidence of other crimes discovered during a traffic stop should be excluded during a traffic stop if either "(1) the officer would have made the stop for that violation even if he did not suspect possible criminal activity and want to investigate further; or (2) the officer had grounds for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity which would justify a stop without regard to the traffic offense." State v. Tucker, supra, 286 Or. at 494 , 595 P.2d 1364 . [2] See, e.g., U.S. v. Trigg, 878 F.2d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir.1989); U.S. v. Guzman, 864 F.2d 1990The court rejected a standard that Judge Tanzer offered in his dissent in State v. Carter/Dawson, 34 Or App 21, 28 , 578 P2d 790 (1978), that stated that evidence of other crimes discovered during a traffic stop should be excluded during a traffic stop if either “(1) the officer would have made the stop for that violation even if he did not suspect possible criminal activity and want to investigate further; or (2) the officer had grounds for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity which would justify a stop without regard to the traffic offense.” State v. Tucker, supra, 286 Or at 494 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
United States v. Norman Russell Baker, Jr.
green
1 sentence1990App. 21, 28 , 578 P.2d 790 (1978), that stated that evidence of other crimes discovered during a traffic stop should be excluded during a traffic stop if either "(1) the officer would have made the stop for that violation even if he did not suspect possible criminal activity and want to investigate further; or (2) the officer had grounds for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity which would justify a stop without regard to the traffic offense." State v. Tucker, supra, 286 Or. at 494 , 595 P.2d 1364 . [2] See, e.g., U.S. v. Trigg, 878 F.2d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir.1989); U.S. v. Guzman, 864 F.2d | 1 | 1990–1990 |
United States v. Milton Hawkins
green
1 sentence1990App. 21, 28 , 578 P.2d 790 (1978), that stated that evidence of other crimes discovered during a traffic stop should be excluded during a traffic stop if either "(1) the officer would have made the stop for that violation even if he did not suspect possible criminal activity and want to investigate further; or (2) the officer had grounds for reasonable suspicion of criminal activity which would justify a stop without regard to the traffic offense." State v. Tucker, supra, 286 Or. at 494 , 595 P.2d 1364 . [2] See, e.g., U.S. v. Trigg, 878 F.2d 1037, 1040 (7th Cir.1989); U.S. v. Guzman, 864 F.2d | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.