Oregon Supreme Court· 2/11/2010

State v. Rodgers

Citations

227 P.3d 695
347 Or. 610
2010 Ore. LEXIS 61

How courts have described this case

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

recognizing that drivers are required to stop for police officers and that, as a result, “a traffic stop by its nature is not an ordinary police-citizen ‘encounter,’ as the court described such encounters in Holmes”
noting that evidence derived from questioning that occurs during an unlawfully extended stop is subject to suppression
holding evidence obtained when police exceed statutory authority not suppressible unless it violates a constitutional rule
holding evidence obtained when police exceed statutory authority not suppressible unless it violates a constitutional rule
explaining that the officers’ questions in both cases extended the stops because their questions occurred after the traffic stops had been completed, were unrelated to the stop, and were not independently justified
explaining that the officers’ questions in both cases extended the stops because their questions occurred after the traffic stops had been completed, were unrelated to the stop, and were not inde- pendently justified

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Muniz, De Muniz, Gillette, Durham, Linder

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

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

Other cases named State v. Rodgers

110 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

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.