Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT WAYNE THORPE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2010-07-28
Citations: 236 Or. App. 459
Docket Number: 081806FE; A140099
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT WAYNE THORPE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Wollheim, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 236
Pages: 459–460

Head Matter:
Argued and submitted June 29,
reversed and remanded July 28, 2010
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT WAYNE THORPE, Defendant-Appellant.
Jackson County Circuit Court
081806FE; A140099
236 P3d 789
Shawn E. Wiley argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Carolyn Bys, Deputy Public Defender, Appellate Division, Office of Public Defense Services.
Jamie Contreras, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were John R. Kroger, Attorney General, and Jerome Lidz, Solicitor General.
Before Wollheim, Presiding Judge, and Brewer, Chief Judge, and Rosenblum, Judge.
PER CURIAM
Brewer, C. J., vice Carson, S. J.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.840(3)(b). On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. He asserts that the police officer, who stopped defendant for riding his bicycle at night without a headlight, unlawfully extended the duration of the traffic stop when the officer, without reasonable suspicion, began questioning defendant about drugs and repeatedly asked for consent to search. A discussion of the facts would not benefit the bench, the bar, or the public. The state concedes that the stop was unlawfully extended. See State v. Rodgers /Kirkeby, 347 Or 610, 227 P3d 695 (2010). Based on our review of the record, we agree and accept the state's concession. Cf. State v. Martusheff, 235 Or App 568, 232 P3d 998 (2010) (accepting state's concession and reversing under similar circumstances).
Reversed and remanded.