State v. Hittle

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Hittle

8 P.3d 248, 169 Or. App. 248, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 1165

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJuly 26, 2000

Docket951240; CA A93470

StatusPublished

This text of 8 P.3d 248 (State v. Hittle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Hittle, 8 P.3d 248, 169 Or. App. 248, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 1165 (Or. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

The state appeals a trial court order suppressing evidence. We reverse.

On November 12,1995, an officer stopped defendant for a traffic infraction. The trial court found that, after the traffic stop ended, the officer told defendant that he was free to go. The officer then asked defendant for permission to search his car for weapons, large sums of cash, or controlled substances. Defendant consented. The officer found the evidence in issue during the ensuing search.

Before trial, the court granted defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that the officer violated ORS 810.410 by making the request. Thereafter, the legislature adopted ORS 136.432, which limits suppression to constitutional violations. In State v. Fugate, 154 Or App 43, 963 P2d 686, on recons 156 Or App 609, 969 P2d 395 (1998), rev allowed 328 Or 275 (1999), we held that the statute is constitutional and that it applies to all pending cases, including those that are based on events before the enactment of. the statute. We decline defendant’s invitation to reconsider that holding.

Defendant also argues that the traffic stop was still continuing when the officer asked for consent and that the request was therefore an unconstitutional exploitation of the stop. There is evidence to support the trial court’s findings that the stop had ended and that the officer had told defendant that he was free to go. Based on those findings, there was no constitutional violation.

Reversed and remanded.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM

The state appeals a trial court order suppressing evidence. We reverse.

On November 12,1995, an officer stopped defendant for a traffic infraction. The trial court found that, after the traffic stop ended, the officer told defendant that he was free to go. The officer then asked defendant for permission to search his car for weapons, large sums of cash, or controlled substances. Defendant consented. The officer found the evidence in issue during the ensuing search.

Before trial, the court granted defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that the officer violated ORS 810.410 by making the request. Thereafter, the legislature adopted ORS 136.432, which limits suppression to constitutional violations. In State v. Fugate, 154 Or App 43, 963 P2d 686, on recons 156 Or App 609, 969 P2d 395 (1998), rev allowed 328 Or 275 (1999), we held that the statute is constitutional and that it applies to all pending cases, including those that are based on events before the enactment of. the statute. We decline defendant’s invitation to reconsider that holding.

Defendant also argues that the traffic stop was still continuing when the officer asked for consent and that the request was therefore an unconstitutional exploitation of the stop. There is evidence to support the trial court’s findings that the stop had ended and that the officer had told defendant that he was free to go. Based on those findings, there was no constitutional violation.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 P.3d 248, 169 Or. App. 248, 2000 Ore. App. LEXIS 1165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hittle-orctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack