State v. Lark

298 P.3d 66, 255 Or. App. 631, 2013 WL 1040241, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 294
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedMarch 13, 2013
Docket10C51364; A149079
StatusPublished

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

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
298 P.3d 66, 255 Or. App. 631, 2013 WL 1040241, 2013 Ore. App. LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lark-orctapp-2013.