Court Opinion

ID: 9792814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:37:12.634926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:19.904849
License: Public Domain

*178EDMONDS, J.,
dissenting.
Although I agree with the reasoning in Judge Warren’s dissent, I wish to disassociate myself from the comments in footnote 3 of his opinion. It is clear that the asking of a motorist whether he or she will consent to a search of a vehicle lawfully stopped for a traffic violation is not a violation of either the United States or the Oregon Constitutions. As I emphasized in my dissenting opinion in State v. Aguilar, 139 Or App 175, 912 P2d 379, rev den 323 Or 265 (1996), the only question is whether the legislature intended by enacting ORS 810.410(3) to prohibit an investigating officer from requesting permission to search during a traffic stop or after it has ended. As I explained there, there is nothing in the language of the statute or the legislative history underlying it that supports a conclusion that the legislature intended the result reached by the majority in that and this case.
Judge Warren’s comments and the majority’s reasoning imply that the motorist’s privacy interest is invaded by a request to search the stopped vehicle. The law is to the contrary. Police officers may approach lawfully stopped motorists at any time to request permission to search without implicating their privacy interests because no seizure of the person arises from the mere act of asking a question. State v. Holmes, 311 Or 400, 409, 813 P2d 28 (1991); State v. Kennedy, 290 Or 493, 624 P2d 99 (1981).
For these reasons, I dissent from the majority opinion and join Judge Warren except as qualified above.