Court Opinion

ID: 9631718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:47:15.974248+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:59.559694
License: Public Domain

BUTTLER, P. J.,
specially concurring.
Although I concur generally with the opinion of De Muniz, J., I write separately to present a slightly different analysis. Officer Barrong lawfully stopped the car in which *628defendant was a passenger for two traffic infractions: The car was emitting visible exhaust, ORS 815.250, and the driver had failed to signal before making a turn. ORS 811.400. After the stop, Barrong was authorized to detain the driver “for the purpose of investigation” reasonably related to the traffic infraction, identification and issuance of a citation. ORS 810.410(3),(6). However:
“Traffic stops should be the minimum possible intrusion on Oregon motorists, and not an excuse to begin questioning, searching or investigating that is unrelated to the traffic reason for the stop.” State v. Carter/Dawson, 34 Or App 21, 32, 578 P2d 790 (1978), aff'd 287 Or 479, 600 P2d 873 (1979).
Barrong asked the driver for her driver’s license and car registration. He was entitled to do that. She gave her name but said that she did not have her license with her. Defendant, who was seated in the front seat, said that his father owned the car and gave Barrong his name. He was asked for the registration but did not produce it. At that time, Barrong asked the name of the passenger in the rear seat, who gave his name — Knight. Barrong then noticed a nylon backpack on the floor near Knight and asked who the owner was.1 No one claimed ownership. He asked if he could look through it.2 Knight then handed it to him, and no one objected.
After the driver failed to produce her driver’s license, Barrong had probable cause to arrest her for that offense. ORS 807.570. He was also authorized to cite her for failure to display the car registration. ORS 803.505. However, he had no authority to search for her license, even if he had arrested her for failure to produce her driver’s license. There would have been no evidence for which to search incident to that arrest. The offense was completed when she failed to present her license. State v. Scheer, 99 Or App 80, 781 P2d 859 (1989). The same is true with respect to the failure to display or *629present the car registration. Because he had no right to search, he had no authority to ask for consent to “look through” the backpack. By doing so, he exceeded the scope of his authority relating to the stop.
Even if Barrong had authority to ask for and receive consent to search the backpack, he did not open it until after he had completed a records check. Although he was entitled to extend the stop to make a records check to determine the registered owner and whether the car had been stolen, once he learned from the records check that the car had not been reported stolen, the lawful stop was at an end. The record is silent as to whether he also learned, as he could and should have, to whom the car was registered, although he testified that he was still concerned about the registration. That is why, he said, he opened the backpack. He did not find the registration but did find, as he said that he had anticipated finding, “any number of things.” Extending the stop to search the backpack extended its duration unreasonably.
Because the evidence was unlawfully seized as a result of the search of the backpack, I agree that it should have been suppressed.

 Although Barrong testified that, on the basis of his training and experience, automobile registration cards are usually kept in the glove box or attached to the sun visor, he did not ask for permission to look in either of those places.

 Barrong testified that he thought that the backpack might contain the driver’s license, the car registration or “any number of things.” He did not, however, open it until he had completed a records check at his patrol car and had requested back-up assistance.