State v. Siegrist

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Siegrist

437 P.3d 327, 296 Or. App. 756

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 20, 2019

DocketA165201

StatusPublished

This text of 437 P.3d 327 (State v. Siegrist) 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. Siegrist, 437 P.3d 327, 296 Or. App. 756 (Or. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

*757Defendant was convicted of possession of heroin, possession of oxycodone, and possession of hydrocodone after a police officer discovered those drugs while searching her purse in connection with a traffic stop. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress the drug evidence, because the officer's request for consent to search her purse unlawfully extended the traffic stop in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The state concedes that, under the facts of this case, the officer's request unlawfully extended the stop and the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. We agree with and accept the state's concession, and we therefore reverse and remand defendant's convictions. See State v. Reich , 287 Or. App. 292, 302-03, 403 P.3d 448 (2017) (holding that the trial court should have granted the motion to suppress based on an unlawful extension of the stop where "[t]he state failed to prove that [the officer's] request for consent to search defendant's person was justified by reasonable suspicion or occurred during an unavoidable lull").

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

*757Defendant was convicted of possession of heroin, possession of oxycodone, and possession of hydrocodone after a police officer discovered those drugs while searching her purse in connection with a traffic stop. On appeal, she argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress the drug evidence, because the officer's request for consent to search her purse unlawfully extended the traffic stop in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The state concedes that, under the facts of this case, the officer's request unlawfully extended the stop and the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress. We agree with and accept the state's concession, and we therefore reverse and remand defendant's convictions. See State v. Reich , 287 Or. App. 292, 302-03, 403 P.3d 448 (2017) (holding that the trial court should have granted the motion to suppress based on an unlawful extension of the stop where "[t]he state failed to prove that [the officer's] request for consent to search defendant's person was justified by reasonable suspicion or occurred during an unavoidable lull").

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

437 P.3d 327, 296 Or. App. 756, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-siegrist-orctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack