Oregon DUI Lawyer Blog

In the recent case of Oregon v. Klien, the Oregon Court of Appeals articulated the limits of a traffic stop. In Klien, police stopped a bicyclist at night for not having proper lighting. After running his identification, police asked Klien if he had any drugs on him. Eventually, Klien admitted to having some drugs. This led to his arrest and prosecution for possession of methamphetamine.

The Court held that once the basis for the original stop has expired, the police contact must end. By inquiring about drugs, the office impermissibly extended the traffic stop. In doing so, officers violated the Oregon Constitution. Therefore, the court held that the evidence of methamphetamine must be suppressed.

This ruling is significant for most crimes involving cars. Whether DUI or possession of a controlled substance, in nearly all cases the initial police contact arises out of a traffic stop. Klien emphatically states that when police conduct such traffic stops, they cannot use the stop as a fishing expedition.

This ruling is also significant because it may give rise to an argument I have long advocated. Under the holding of Klien, it may be unlawful for police to call in a special DUI officer. Since all officers are capable of conducting a DUI investigation, it is arguably unlawful to extend an investigation simply to bring in a special officer for that purpose.

I wrote about this argument in an article I published for the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers a few years ago. Although it is not as common in Oregon for officers to specialize in DUI, the Klien decision adds strength to an objection in any case in which the investigation is extended.

Oregon traffic law requires that drivers maintain a safe distance from emergency vehicles and ambulances. This means when a driver sees a police man or other emergency vehicle on the side of the road, the driver must either move over a lane to give more room or slow down. Starting on January 1, 2010, this law will be expanded. Next year, the law will also apply to tow trucks and roadside assistance vehicles. Slowing down will also be clarified to mean 5 miles below the posted speed limit.

These revisions strike me a common sense. Drivers should be giving extra room and slowing down whenever they see someone on the side of the highway. Standing on the shoulder of a highway, whether as a cop or a tow truck driver, is extremely dangerous. Having laws to protect those people is probably a good idea.

As a traffic attorney, I will be curious to see how this revised law is enforced. Whenever the traffic code is revised, it gives the police more reasons to pull people over. Because a traffic stop is often the beginning of a criminal investigation, this changed law could give the police more opportunities to open criminal traffic investigations.

Historically, the police could probably have stopped a driver for failing to slow for a tow truck operator under the negligent or reckless driving statutes. If these stops led to criminal investigations, however, a skilled criminal defense lawyer would likely challenge the stop as unlawful. With this new revision, such challenges will be more difficult.

In any event, the best way to avoid getting pulled over to drive safely.

As an Oregon DUI lawyer, I end up handling a lot of traffic violation matters in addition to driving under the influence cases. For that reason, a recent Multnomah County Circuit Court case caught my attention. The case is non-binding, meaning it has no presidential effect. Nevertheless, it is interesting and instructive.

The case arose when a man driving in Portland made a last minute turn and hit a bicyclist. The driver was cited for failing to yield to a rider in a bicycle lane. At the time of the collision, the bicycle was in the intersection. Although there is a painted bike lane on both sides of the intersection, the pain does not extend through the intersection itself. For that reason, the traffic violation was dismissed.

The case would likely not have been dismissed had the driver been cited for a different violation. This result points to an essential truth about criminal defense. Just because someone did something wrong, it doesn't mean they are guilty of the crime with which they are charged. In this case, hitting a bicyclist was likely the result of a violation - but the not violation charged.

This truth is not only important in traffic violations. Criminal laws are written with specific elements. In order to prove someone's guilt, the government must show that the person committed each of those specific elements. When the government charges a crime when it cannot prove each of the elements, the accused should be acquitted. This is as true in a serious crime as it is in a mere traffic violation.