State v. Crockett
| Decision Date | 20 June 1978 |
| Citation | 34 Or.App. 1019,580 P.2d 214 |
| Parties | The STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Margaret Eileen CROCKETT, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Gregory E. Veralrud, Certified Law Student, Eugene, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were J. Pat Horton, Dist. Atty. for Lane County, and Frank R. Papagni, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Eugene.
R. Glenn Mitterman, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before SCHWAB, C. J., and LEE, RICHARDSON and JOSEPH, JJ.
Defendant was charged with theft in the second degree. ORS 164.045. She moved to suppress items seized as a result of a warrantless search of her automobile after it had been stopped by a police officer. The motion was granted and the state appeals.
The defendant has effectively conceded that the stop was valid by not raising any substantial claim that it was invalid. Her argument that the search was invalid rests on an assumption that the stop was lawful. The officer stopped defendant and her companion on the basis of a radio bulletin issued by the police dispatcher. The dispatcher had received a call from a security guard at a local shopping center, who reported a possible theft and gave a description and license number of the car in which the suspects had left the center. The precise content of the initial message from the security guard to the dispatcher was not clearly established. She contends that the detention and questioning which followed the stop and preceded the search were unreasonable and that the search was conducted without probable cause.
Defendant's car matched the description given by the security guard. The stop was made near the shopping center just after the initial bulletin concerning the theft had been broadcast. Defendant and her companion admitted that they had been at the shopping center. While the first officer questioned defendant, another officer relayed to him additional information from the security guard as it was broadcast. The officer did not recall precisely when he received the various bits of additional information; he testified that messages were given to him almost continuously from the time of the stop until the time of the search, which took place 20 to 30 minutes later. It is clear, however, that prior to the search the officer had at least the following information: The security guard had seen two persons putting in the described car several items of ladies' underclothing which were not in bags and which bore full, intact price tags; he considered those items to have been stolen. After receiving that information, the police officer asked defendant if she had in the car any articles of ladies' clothing which were unbagged and which bore full price tags. She produced two "nighties." Shortly thereafter the officer asked for permission to search the car. Defendant denied the request. The officer searched the car anyway and found other clothing of the type the guard had described.
ORS 131.615 provides:
The inquiries in this instance concerned only the reported theft. Defendant and her companion admitted that they had been at the shopping center. Although defendant told the officer that she had gone to the shopping center to exchange something, the initial report, along with the information the officers were receiving, justified the continued questioning and the time it took.
Defendant argues that at the time the car was searched the police officer did not have probable cause to believe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hamburg v. State
...Kasabucki, 52 N.J. 110, 244 A.2d 101, 104 (1968); People v. Holder, 69 Misc.2d 863, 331 N.Y.S.2d 557, 564 (1972); State v. Crockett, 34 Or.App. 1019, 580 P.2d 214, 216 (1978); State v. Feehely, 27 Or.App. 343, 556 P.2d 142, 144 Expert testimony that Mr. Hamburg probably signed the names of ......
-
State v. Armstrong
...the defendant fit the description of the robbery suspect, provided an adequate basis for defendant's arrest. See State v. Crockett, 34 Or.App. 1019, 1023, 580 P.2d 214 (1978); see also, State v. Cloman, supra, 254 Or. at 10, 456 P.2d 67; State v. Robertson, supra; State v. Zimmerlee, 45 Or.......
-
State v. Alpert
...view on the floorboard, the question, then, is, did Officer Rainey have probable cause to seize those items? In State v. Crockett, 34 Or.App. 1019, 1023, 580 P.2d 214 (1978), we "* * * Probable cause means 'a well-warranted suspicion.' State v. Willis, 24 Or.App. 409, 412, 545 P.2d 1392, re......
-
State v. Gholston
...by the victim. 2 These facts clearly gave police probable cause to believe that defendant had committed a crime. State v. Crockett, 34 Or.App. 1019, 1023, 580 P.2d 214 (1978). Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the police acted on a "mere possibility" or used "guess work." Th......