Court Opinion

ID: 9846572
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:43:49.856012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:38.981241
License: Public Domain

*215VAN HOOMISSEN, J.,
concurring.
For the reasons that follow, I agree that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress.
The stop here was lawful. ORS 810.410(3)(b).1 After advising defendant that he would not issue a citation for a defective turn signal, the trooper returned defendant’s driver license and the car registration and told the men that they were free to go. However, because the trooper stood in the open car doorway and did not remove his arm from the car door, in fact, the men were not free to go. Their continued detention, after the purpose of the stop for a traffic infraction had been completed, was unlawful. While defendant was being unlawfully detained, the trooper began to question him and his passenger about possible criminal activity unrelated to the traffic infraction for which defendant had been lawfully stopped.
On those narrow facts, I am prepared to accept the conclusion in this case that the evidence later found in the passenger compartment of the car should have been suppressed.
Graber, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

 The policy implicit in ORS 810.410(3)(b) is determined by the legislature, not this court. If it is to be modified, the legislature must make the modification. The correct interpretation of the statute is the responsibility of this court.