State v. Burr
Citation | 136 Or.App. 140,901 P.2d 873 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Noah BURR, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Christopher Michael ALVAREZ, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Matthew FRIES, Respondent. STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Matthew Alan VAN BERGEN, Respondent. 930258CR to 930261CR; CA A83869 (Control) to CA A83872. |
Decision Date | 23 August 1995 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.
Dan Maloney, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for respondents Noah Burr, Matthew Fries and Christopher Michael Alvarez. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.
Brian D. Aaron, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent Matthew Alan Van Bergen.
Before WARREN, P.J., and EDMONDS and ARMSTRONG, JJ.
Defendants were each charged with one count of manufacture of a controlled substance and one count of possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(1), (4)(a). Before trial, defendants moved to suppress evidence seized following a warrantless search of a pickup and the admissions obtained from defendants thereafter. The trial court granted defendants' motion, and the state appeals. ORS 138.060(3). The issue is whether the warrantless search violated defendants' constitutional rights under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. We reverse.
The trial court found:
We are bound by the trial court's express or implicit findings provided that they are supported by evidence in the record. In this case, they are. In its conclusions of law, the trial court said, "The vehicle was neither occupied nor mobile at the time Deputy Therman first observed it." Accordingly, our function is to decide whether the trial court erred when it concluded as a matter of law that the pickup was not "mobile." State v. Ehly, 317 Or. 66, 75, 854 P.2d 421 (1993).
The state argues that the application of the "automobile exception" to the general prohibition against warrantless searches was justified under the circumstances of this case. That exception provides that "if police have probable cause to believe that a person's automobile, which is mobile when stopped by police, contains contraband or crime evidence," they may conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle for those items. State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268, 276, 721 P.2d 1357 (1986). Defendants argue that the automobile exception does not apply to the facts of this case because the pickup was parked and they were outside its cab at the time the officers encountered it.
A review of the case law is instructive in deciding this issue. In Brown, the defendant was stopped while he was driving his automobile. When the defendant declined to consent to a search of his automobile, the officers searched the passenger's compartment and the glove box for evidence that would support the accusation that he was in possession of a weapon. The Supreme Court held:
301 Or. at 274, 721 P.2d 1357.
The decision in Brown was followed by State v. Kock, 302 Or. 29, 725 P.2d 1285 (1986). In Kock, two police officers were watching the parking lot and entry area of a store where the defendant worked. The store manager had told the police before the surveillance that the defendant did not have permission to take merchandise from the store. The defendant customarily worked in the store between 4:00 and 6:30 a.m. The officers saw him come to work and enter the store between 3:30 and 4:00 a.m. He did not take anything into the store with him. At 5:42 a.m., they saw him leave the store with a box, which he took to his car. He removed a package from the box and put the package in the car. After smoking a cigarette, the defendant returned to the store, taking the box with him. When the defendant had left, the officers searched the car and seized the package.
The court held that the automobile exception did not apply. It said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Kruchek
...when stopped by police, contains contraband or crime evidence' they may conduct a warrantless search for those items." State v. Burr, 136 Or.App. 140, 145, 901 P.2d 873, rev. den. 322 Or. 360, 907 P.2d 247 (1995) (quoting State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268, 276, 721 P.2d 1357 (1986)). The exceptio......
-
State v. McCarthy
...because it appeared to be having mechanical problems when the police developed probable cause to search it. Later, in State v. Burr, 136 Or.App. 140, 150, 901 P.2d 873, rev den, 322 Or. 360 (1995), the court held that a pickup truck was mobile, even though officers had never seen it move an......
-
State v. McCarthy
......Warner, 117 Or.App. 420, 424, 844. P 2d 272 (1992), the court held that a vehicle was not. mobile, even though an officer had seen it moving, because it. appeared to be having mechanical problems when the police. developed probable cause to search it. . . Later, in State v. Burr, 136 Or.App. 140, 150, 901. P.2d 873, rev den, 322 Or. 360 (1995), the court. held that a pickup truck was mobile, even though officers had. never seen it move and no one was in it, because it was. "parked along a public highway at night in an isolated. area" and four persons were ......
-
State v. Snow
..."encountered" it, despite the fact that it was moving when the officer first noticed it. Id. at 423-24, 844 P.2d 272. In State v. Burr, 136 Or.App. 140, 901 P.2d 873, rev. den. 322 Or. 360, 907 P.2d 247 (1995), we returned to, and expanded, Cromwell's "constructive mobility" principle. In B......