Oregon Supreme Court· 11/15/2019

State v. Arreola-Botello

Citations

365 Or. 695
451 P.3d 939

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that, when police expand the scope of a traffic stop, they must have rea- sonable suspicion of a crime to justify that expansion
concluding that ORS 131.615 is consistent with Article I, section 9’s limitations
explaining that, to hold otherwise would “mak[e] meaningless the rule which requires an officer to have reasonable suspicion before stop- ping an individual to conduct a criminal investigation”
explaining that “[i]t is the state’s burden to prove that the consent was indepen- dent of, or only tenuously related to, the illegal police con- duct” (internal quotation marks omitted)
rejecting the “unavoidable lull” doctrine and concluding that “all investigative activities, including investigative inquiries, conducted during a traffic stop are part of an ongoing seizure and are subject to both subject- matter and durational limitations”
a “mere conversation” is a “non-coercive encounter” and does not involve “any” restraint on the person’s liberty or freedom of movement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Nelson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

54 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

25 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named State v. Arreola-Botello

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.