State v. Lark

298 P.3d 66, 255 Or. App. 631, 2013 WL 1040241, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 294
Court of Appeals of Oregon·Decided March 13, 2013·No. 10C51364; A149079·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment convicting him of one count of unlawful delivery of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school, ORS 475.892, assigning error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence discovered during a traffic stop. Defendant argues that the officer unlawfully extended the duration of the stop by asking questions unrelated to the traffic violation without independent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The state concedes the error, and we agree. See State v. Bertsch, 251 Or App 128, 133, 284 P3d 502 (2012) (“The extension of a traffic stop beyond an investigation into a traffic violation is unlawful unless it is supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.”). Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

Reversed and remanded.

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

State v. Lark, 298 P.3d 66, 255 Or. App. 631, 2013 WL 1040241, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 294 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).

298 P.3d 66 (State v. Lark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Bertsch
284 P.3d 502 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 2012)