State v. Arreola-Botello
Oregon Supreme Court
365 Or. 695, 451 P.3d 939 (2019)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
A police officer stopped Arreola-Botello (defendant) because Arreola-Botello changed lanes and turned without signaling. Arreola-Botello pulled over and quickly produced his license, but he spent three or four minutes looking for his registration and proof of insurance. During the wait, the officer asked Arreola-Botello what the officer claimed were routine questions that he always asks during traffic stops. Arreola-Botello was primarily Spanish-speaking and had difficulty understanding the officer’s questions. Initially, a passenger translated for him, but she left after the officer told her she was free to leave. The officer asked Arreola-Botello whether he had weapons, drugs, or other illegal items in his car. The officer then asked if he could search the car, and Arreola-Botello responded, “Sure, okay.” During the search, the officer found a small package that contained methamphetamine on the floor between the door and driver’s seat. The trial court denied Arreola-Botello’s motion to suppress the drugs, finding that the questioning occurred during an unavoidable lull in the traffic stop and that Arreola-Botello consented to the search. The court of appeals agreed with the trial court and affirmed Arreola-Botello’s conviction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nelson, J.)
Dissent (Garrett, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
