OT Oregon Supreme Court Bans Police Officers From Asking Random Questions During Traffic Stops

[SlyPokerDog]

A recent ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court has banned a controversial policing practice: No longer can officers use a broken taillight or a failure to signal as a justification for scouting a driver’s car for illegal guns or drugs.

The ruling instructs officers to stick to questions “reasonably related” to the reason the driver was pulled over, effectively ending law enforcement’s ability to turn a routine traffic stop into a fishing expedition for a more serious offense.

Law enforcement agencies contacted by OPB are in various stages of reviewing the ruling and creating new instructions for officers. While the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office and the Salem Police Department said they were both awaiting guidance from their district and city attorneys, respectively, police departments in Beaverton and Gresham, as well as the Oregon State Police, were working on a training bulletin. The Portland Police Bureau said it is reviewing its training protocols and updating officers.

While many of these law enforcement agencies have now told officers to keep the conversation during these stops related to the traffic infraction, they say it’s clear the ruling grants some leeway if an officer is in danger or has a strong reason to believe a crime has occurred.

“If a deputy pulls someone over for a traffic violation, walks up, smells the odor of alcohol and sees blood shot eyes, poor coordination in their hands, that would establish reasonable suspicion for a DUI,” said Sgt. Danny DiPietro, a spokesman for the Washington County Sheriff’s Office. “Then they can inquire about that crime.”

But no longer can officers randomly segue into questions about the presence of guns or drugs.

“Each officer or deputy in this case are going to have to change the way they conduct their traffic stops on a day to day basis,” said DiPietro. “It’s very significant.”

https://www.opb.org/news/article/or...Ti4AMQC5uyz8gwf8AkGRbESTu9cXb2Uwwn7XORLl-zplg

 

[MARIS61]

Dialing back the police state a notch.

Thanks, OSC!

 

[GhostOfPGA]

I don’t see how anyone could say this isn’t a positive.

 

[barfo]

Good. I'm sick and tired of the fuzz asking me about the gestation period of a wallaby, or who played Mrs. Thurston Howell on Gilligan's Island.

Google it yerself, ya damn copper!

barfo

 

[Lanny]

A recent ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court has banned a controversial policing practice: No longer can officers use a broken taillight or a failure to signal as a justification for scouting a driver’s car for illegal guns or drugs.

The ruling instructs officers to stick to questions “reasonably related” to the reason the driver was pulled over, effectively ending law enforcement’s ability to turn a routine traffic stop into a fishing expedition for a more serious offense.

Law enforcement agencies contacted by OPB are in various stages of reviewing the ruling and creating new instructions for officers. While the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office and the Salem Police Department said they were both awaiting guidance from their district and city attorneys, respectively, police departments in Beaverton and Gresham, as well as the Oregon State Police, were working on a training bulletin. The Portland Police Bureau said it is reviewing its training protocols and updating officers.

While many of these law enforcement agencies have now told officers to keep the conversation during these stops related to the traffic infraction, they say it’s clear the ruling grants some leeway if an officer is in danger or has a strong reason to believe a crime has occurred.

“If a deputy pulls someone over for a traffic violation, walks up, smells the odor of alcohol and sees blood shot eyes, poor coordination in their hands, that would establish reasonable suspicion for a DUI,” said Sgt. Danny DiPietro, a spokesman for the Washington County Sheriff’s Office. “Then they can inquire about that crime.”

But no longer can officers randomly segue into questions about the presence of guns or drugs.

“Each officer or deputy in this case are going to have to change the way they conduct their traffic stops on a day to day basis,” said DiPietro. “It’s very significant.”

https://www.opb.org/news/article/or...Ti4AMQC5uyz8gwf8AkGRbESTu9cXb2Uwwn7XORLl-zplg

Does the mean that Zach Randolph is free of suspicion for the firearm found in the car he owned and was riding in during the police stop of that car going something like 100 mph in Portland?

 

[MARIS61]

Does the mean that Zach Randolph is free of suspicion for the firearm found in the car he owned and was riding in during the police stop of that car going something like 100 mph in Portland?

If he bothers to appeal, he could likely get that charge reversed.

Unless it was openly visible or there was some reason to suspect he was in illegal possession of a gun.

Speeding with a legally present gun is not a gun crime, it is a traffic infraction. The gun is inconsequential and none of the LEO's business.

 

[jlprk]

A recent ruling by the Oregon Supreme Court has banned a controversial policing practice: No longer can officers use a broken taillight or a failure to signal as a justification for scouting a driver’s car for illegal guns or drugs.

They use "lane change violation" as a reason to stop you. 10 years ago, he was tailgating me and I knew he was interested. So almost on purpose, I changed lanes without doing the turn indicator. He wanted to know whether I was stoned. I told him I was on coffee, leaving work. He could see I was hyper...I'd had a few cups! He left. No ticket.