State v. Ellis

                                   164

 Submitted June 2, affirmed July 8, petition for review denied December 23,
                             2021 (

)


                    STATE OF OREGON,
                     Plaintiff-Respondent,
                               v.
                   BONNIE LYNN ELLIS,
                     Defendant-Appellant.
                  Marion County Circuit Court
                   17CR53908, 16CR59862;
                  A172112 (Control), A172423
                               

  Courtland Geyer, Judge. (Judgment and Judgments of
Revocation entered August 29, 2019; Amended Judgment of
Revocation entered December 12, 2019)
  Jennifer K. Gardiner, Judge pro tempore. (Amended
Judgment of Revocation entered December 24, 2019)
  Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate
Section, and Nora Coon, Deputy Public Defender, Office of
Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
   Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman,
Solicitor General, and Michael A. Casper, Assistant Attorney
General, filed the brief for respondent.
  Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and James, Judge, and
Kamins, Judge.
  PER CURIAM
  Affirmed.
Cite as 

 (2021)                              165

        PER CURIAM
         In these consolidated cases, defendant appeals a
judgment of conviction for delivery and possession of heroin in Case No. 17CR53908 and probation revocation judgments in Case. No. 16CR59862. She assigns error to the
trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress the drugs and
paraphernalia that officers found in her truck, and which
led to her conviction. She argues that the officers unlawfully
extended the scope of her arrest by asking her about her
drug use and for consent to search her truck after she was
arrested. In support of this argument, defendant argues
that the Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution
subject-matter constraints on traffic stops recognized in
State v. Arreola-Botello ought to be extended to arrests.

, 

 (2019) (concluding that, when
police expand the scope of a traffic stop, they must have reasonable suspicion of a crime to justify that expansion). Here,
defendant argues that there was no reasonable suspicion to
ask defendant about drugs.
         The state responds that (1) defendant’s argument
about extending the Arreola-Botello subject-matter limitations to arrests is not preserved; what she argued below was
that the officer unlawfully extended the traffic stop, something that the trial court rejected based on its determination that defendant was arrested; (2) if preserved, there is
no basis for extending the Arreola-Botello subject-matter
limitations to arrests given the other protections in place
for arrestees; and (3) the officer had reasonable suspicion.
         We agree with the state on its first point. Defendant’s
contention that the reasoning of Arreola-Botello applies to
arrests in addition to traffic stops was not preserved for the
reason identified by the state, and defendant has not asked
us to review a claim of plain error. See ORAP 5.45.
        Affirmed.