## Facts

- A Beaverton police officer stopped Mario Arreola-Botello for changing lanes and turning without signaling.
- Arreola-Botello promptly produced his driver’s license but spent several minutes looking for registration and proof of insurance.
- While Arreola-Botello searched, the officer asked questions unrelated to the traffic infractions, including whether there were weapons or drugs in the car, and requested consent to search.
- Arreola-Botello, who primarily spoke Spanish and had difficulty understanding English, consented to the search.
- The officer searched the vehicle and found methamphetamine near the driver’s seat.
- Arreola-Botello was charged and convicted of unlawful possession of methamphetamine after the trial court denied his motion to suppress.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, police may ask questions and request consent to search on matters unrelated to the purpose of a traffic stop without independent constitutional justification, so long as the stop is not prolonged (including during an “unavoidable lull”).
2. Whether consent to search obtained through an unlawful expansion of a traffic stop is valid to justify a search and admit resulting evidence.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the circuit court and remanded.
- The court held that the officer’s questions about drugs and weapons and his request for consent to search exceeded the permissible scope of the traffic stop and violated Article I, section 9.
- The court rejected the “unavoidable lull” doctrine as a basis to permit unrelated investigatory questioning or requests during a stop.
- The court concluded that the evidence discovered during the search should have been suppressed because the consent was obtained through an unlawful expansion of the stop.

## Legal Principles

- A traffic stop is a seizure under Article I, section 9, and police conduct during the stop must be justified in both scope and duration.
- Article I, section 9 imposes subject-matter limits: investigative actions during a stop must be reasonably related to the traffic infraction, identification, or officer safety, unless supported by independent constitutional justification.
- Article I, section 9 also imposes durational limits: the stop may last no longer than reasonably necessary to complete the traffic-related mission.
- Unrelated questions or requests to search may not be justified solely because they occur during a period in which the officer is otherwise occupied or waiting; lack of prolongation does not cure an unlawful subject-matter expansion.
- Consent obtained as a product of an unlawful seizure or unlawful expansion of a stop does not validate a search when it is tainted by the constitutional violation.

## Conclusion

The court held that, during a traffic stop, police may not pursue unrelated investigatory questioning or seek consent to search without an independent constitutional basis, even if the questioning occurs during a momentary lull and does not extend the stop; evidence obtained from a search following such an unlawful expansion must be suppressed.


State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or. 695, 451 P.3d 939 (Or. 2019)