traffic stop violation in Oregon

2024A. Motion to Suppress Evidence from the First Traffic Stop In defendant’s first pro se assignment of error, we understand him to assert that the trial court erred in deny- ing his motion to suppress evidence resulting from the ini- tial traffic stop that led to his arrest, because the interaction Cite as 336 Or App 72 (2024) 93 was marred by multiple state and federal constitutional vio- lations.

2024A. Motion to Suppress Evidence from the First Traffic Stop In defendant’s first pro se assignment of error, we understand him to assert that the trial court erred in deny- ing his motion to suppress evidence resulting from the ini- tial traffic stop that led to his arrest, because the interaction Cite as 336 Or App 72 (2024) 93 was marred by multiple state and federal constitutional vio- lations.

2024“We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to sup- press for legal error, and we are bound by the trial court’s factual findings if there is any constitutionally sufficient evidence in the record to support them.” State v. Maciel- Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 165-66 , 389 P3d 1121 (2017).

2024“We review a trial court’s denial of a motion to sup- press for legal error, and we are bound by the trial court’s factual findings if there is any constitutionally sufficient evidence in the record to support them.” State v. Maciel- Figueroa, 361 Or 163, 165-66 , 389 P3d 1121 (2017).

2011Id. at 342 .

2008Contrary to the state’s assertion, our decision in Raney, 215 Or App at 341 , does not compel a different conclusion.

2026We further concluded that the defendant’s seizure was unlawfully extended by the use of the drug-sniffing Cite as 347 Or App 216 (2026) 227 dog, because it was unrelated to the justification for seizing defendant in the context of the traffic stop: “Consequently, because the only plausible justifica- tion for seizing defendant in the context of the traffic stop was to ensure the safe and lawful processing of it, when [the drug-sniffing dog’s] sniff extended the traffic stop in violation of the subject-matter limitations recognized in Arreola-Botello, it also unlawfully extended the related anc

2026Defendant’s own rights under Article I, section 9, were violated by that unlawful extension, so her motion to suppress must be granted.” Id. at 229-30 .

2008We affirm on appeal, State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366 , 182 P3d 209 (2008), and dismiss the cross-appeal as moot.

2008We affirm on appeal, State v. Rodgers, 219 Or App 366 , 182 P3d 209 (2008), and dismiss the cross-appeal as moot.

1999Even assuming that Evans’s request for Christensen’s consent to a search of her car was an unlawful extension of the traffic stop in violation of ORS 810.410, thus requiring an exploitation analysis, see State v. Arabzadeh, 162 Or App 423, 427 , 986 P2d 736 (1999), nothing in the record would support a determination that defendant’s disclaimer of any interest in the bag was the exploited product of any prior illegality, viz., Evans’s request for consent to search the car.

1999Even assuming that Evans’s request for Christensen’s consent to a search of her car was an unlawful extension of the traffic stop in violation of ORS 810.410, thus requiring an exploitation analysis, see State v. Arabzadeh, 162 Or App 423, 427 , 986 P2d 736 (1999), nothing in the record would support a determination that defendant’s disclaimer of any interest in the bag was the exploited product of any prior illegality, viz., Evans’s request for consent to search the car.

1998Because an officer is free to engage in conversation a person who decides not to leave the scene of a stop after it concludes, see State v. Hester, 153 Or App 247 , 956 P2d 1052 (1998), 1 the majority concludes that Hess’ question did not unlawfully extend the traffic stop in violation of ORS 810.410.

1998Because an officer is free to engage in conversation a person who decides not to leave the scene of a stop after it concludes, see State v. Hester, 153 Or App 247 , 956 P2d 1052 (1998), 1 the majority concludes that Hess’ question did not unlawfully extend the traffic stop in violation of ORS 810.410.

1994Before the enactment of the statute in question, this court held that “ [shopping a vehicle and detaining its occupants is a ‘seizure’ of the person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment *402 to the Constitution of the United States.” 1 State v. Tucker, 286 Or 485, 492 , 595 P2d 1364 (1979).

1994Before the enactment of the statute in question, this court held that “ [shopping a vehicle and detaining its occupants is a ‘seizure’ of the person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment *402 to the Constitution of the United States.” 1 State v. Tucker, 286 Or 485, 492 , 595 P2d 1364 (1979).