Protests 58089 of London Midland & Scottish Importers, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that suppression was required to remedy violation of Article I, section 9, where, on appeal, “the state offer[ed] no reasoned explanation—or, indeed, any explanation at all—as to why, in the totality of the circumstances of this case, suppression is not required”
• acknowledging that a request for consent to search for items unrelated to reason for initial stop during an “unavoidable lull” does not unlawfully extend the stop
• concluding that suppression was required to remedy violation of Article I, section 9, where, on appeal, “the state offer [ed] no reasoned explanation — or, indeed, any explanation at all — as to why, in the totality of the circumstances of this case, suppression is not required”
• applying Rodgers /Kirkeby where initial stop was for criminal investigation, not traffic infraction
• officers unconstitutionally extended stop for criminal trespass by asking for consent to search the defendant’s car for weapons
• the state’s officer safety alternative basis for affirmance was unreviewable when the state never advanced the alternative rationale to the trial court, and, if it had, the defendant might have created a different record below

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).