Yesterday the Supreme Court of Oregon handed down two important cases dealing with traffic stops. The first was State v. Machuca. As I posted yesterday, that case undermined one of the constitutional objections to blood tests. The Supreme Court also handed down State v. Rogers/Kirby.
Rogers and Kirby were two cases that were combined for appeal. In both cases, the defendants were stopped for traffic violations. The police officers obtained all the information needed to write traffic citations. Before letting the defendants go, however, the police asked questions designed to explore possible criminal behavior. Following the questions, both defendants consented to searches. These searches resulted in contraband.
The Supreme Court held that the results of the searches must be suppressed. An officer does have the lawful authority to stop a vehicle for a traffic violation. That stop may last so long as necessary to write an citation for the violation. Although the Court held that an officer may make unrelated inquiries during this process, the officer cannot extend the process in order to conduct a criminal investigation. If stopped, one should never consent to a search.
This case brings to mind an article I wrote for the Washington Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. In that article, I argued that DUI enforcement squads could be unconstitutional in Washington because it delayed the investigation. That is to say, when an officer stops a driver, then calls for a DUI specialist to do the criminal investigation, the delay could be unconstitutional. Oregon and Washington law is slightly different on this point, but this new case could open the door to a similar augment here in Oregon.
