State v. Nims
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1Opinion of the CourtDuncan, J.
The state appeals the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained after defendant consented to a search of her car during a lawful traffic stop. The state argues that the trial court erred in concluding that defendant’s consent was the product of an unlawful extension of the traffic stop. We agree and, therefore, reverse and remand.
The relevant facts are not disputed. As found by the trial court in its letter opinion, they are as follows:
“In this case two police officers were driving together in Beaverton. The officers were showing each other houses where…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. RodgersOregon Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. RodgersCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2008
- State v. HuggettCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2009
- State v. HallCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2010
- State v. LeinoCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2012
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. Arreola-BotelloOregon Supreme Court · 2019
- State v. BlackstoneCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
- State v. ReichCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2017
- State v. Zin Min AungCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2014
- State v. McBrideCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2019
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.