<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Thursday, March 28, 2024
March 28, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

DUII driver who crossed state line wasn’t home-free, high court rules

By Aimee Green, The Oregonian
Published: June 22, 2017, 2:52pm

The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday reinstated the conviction of a drunken driver who argued that he never should have been found guilty because a Washington trooper didn’t have the legal authority to pull him over in Oregon.

The high court reversed a 2016 ruling by the Oregon Court of Appeals, which found that the driver essentially was home-free because the trooper shouldn’t have stopped him once they both crossed the border into Oregon.

The Supreme Court reinstated James Edward Keller’s conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicants, finding that the Washington trooper had probable cause to stop Keller. The court reasoned that an Oregon police officer would have stopped Keller if the officer had come across him instead.

According to a court summary of the case and police reports:

It was March 21, 2011, around 1:40 a.m. when the trooper was driving south on Interstate 5 — just north of the Interstate Bridge — in an unmarked patrol car. While still in Washington, the trooper saw a car driven by Keller rapidly approach from behind.

The trooper estimated the car was driving 25 mph over the speed limit, and he said the car began tailgating him so closely that he could no longer see its headlights. The car switched lanes and accelerated past, and the trooper turned on his emergency lights while still in Washington, with the intention of pulling Keller over once they got off the bridge and to the first safe place to stop in Oregon.

Keller, Of Beaverton, Ore., drove past the first Oregon exit, but stopped a short while later after the trooper hailed him over the patrol car’s public address system.

Before stepping out of his cruiser, the trooper radioed a dispatcher to summon Portland police to help. The trooper walked up to Keller, noticed his watery bloodshot eyes and slurred speech, got Keller’s identification, then walked back to his car to wait for Portland police.

He radioed for Portland police again, noting that he suspected the driver of DUII. Portland police arrived about eight to 12 minutes after the trooper’s first request for help.

They took over the investigation and arrested Keller, then 40 and a Beaverton resident. Police said Keller had a blood alcohol level of .27 percent, more than three times the legal limit for driving.

The Court of Appeals reversed Keller’s May 2011 guilty finding by Multnomah County Circuit Judge David Rees. The majority of the Appeals Court pointed to a state law that grants out-of-state police the authority to stop people suspected of having committed only felonies — and then only if the officers are in “hot pursuit” when they chase the suspects into Oregon.

At the time, the trooper suspected Keller only of traffic violations — speeding and following too close. Keller ultimately was convicted of misdemeanor DUII.

But the Supreme Court found that aside from the pursuit law, the trooper’s stop of Keller wasn’t a violation of unreasonable search and seizure protections under Oregon Constitution.

The trooper had probable cause to stop Keller, and as a result the evidence collected was admissible in court, the Supreme Court ruled.

The high court also found that the trooper acted reasonably during every step of the process.

Loading...