State v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 20 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | A164602,A164601 (Control) |
| Citation | 304 Or.App. 293,466 P.3d 1034 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Kathryn Jane EDWARDS, aka Katheryn Jane Edwards, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Marc D. Brown, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Erica Herb, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services.
Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Before Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James, Judge.
Pursuant to a stipulated facts trial, defendant was convicted of one count of possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894. Deputies found the methamphetamine in the backpack that defendant was wearing at the time of her arrest on an outstanding warrant after they removed it from her and searched it without a warrant. On appeal, defendant assigns error to the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress. She contends that the court erred when it determined that the deputies lawfully seized the backpack before searching it and that that error was not harmless. We agree and reverse and remand.
We review the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress "for legal error, accepting the facts as found by the trial court, so long as there is constitutionally sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings." State v. Jones , 286 Or. App. 562, 564, 401 P.3d 271 (2017). In accordance with that standard, we take the facts from the trial court's findings, which are supported by the evidence and which neither party contests.
Defendant had a warrant out for her arrest for failure to appear when Deputy Merklin spotted her riding her bicycle, pulling a bike trailer. Defendant was wearing a backpack at the time. Merklin stopped her and arrested her on the warrant. Sergeant Bowman arrived, followed by Deputy Vargas, and, at some point, the backpack was removed from defendant and she was placed in handcuffs. Defendant told officers that she was carrying the backpack for a friend. Once the backpack was removed from defendant, Bowman placed it on the hood of his patrol car and searched it. He did so pursuant to the Washington County inventory policy, which requires the inventory of the belongings of a person who is in custody and being transported to jail. The search uncovered a coin purse containing a glass pipe with residue (later determined to be methamphetamine). Defendant was not offered the opportunity to leave the backpack with her bike and trailer, which officers left off to the side of the road in the bushes with defendant's agreement. Defendant did not ask to leave the backpack at the scene, and a decision was "made that the backpack was going into the jail."
Before trial, defendant moved to suppress the evidence discovered in the search of the backpack. She contended that officers seized the backpack without a warrant before they conducted the search, and that no identifiable exception to the warrant requirement authorized the seizure. In response, the state did not dispute that it seized the backpack. It also did not clearly identify an applicable exception to the warrant requirement. Instead, it argued generally that it is permissible for arresting officers to seize the property of an arrestee, at least where there is no third party on the scene to which defendant could transfer the property. The trial court agreed with the state and denied the motion, ruling that the police had the "lawful authority to possess that bag for purposes of taking it and with her to the jail." Following the court's ruling, defendant agreed to a stipulated facts trial, at which the court found her guilty as charged of unlawfully possessing methamphetamine.
Defendant appealed, assigning error to the denial of her motion to suppress. She argues, as she did below, that officers unlawfully seized her backpack without a warrant before the search and that that unlawful seizure requires suppression of the evidence discovered in the subsequent search of the backpack. Defendant does not identify when, precisely, the seizure of the backpack occurred.
In response, the state does not dispute that officers seized the backpack. As for timing, the state argues that the seizure of defendant's backpack occurred at the time that she was lawfully arrested and, further, that it is lawful for officers to seize all property on an arrestee's person at the time of arrest. For that reason, the state asserts, the backpack was lawfully in the officers’ possession at the time it was searched pursuant to the inventory policy. Consistent with our case law on inventory searches, neither party argues that the inventory exception to the warrant requirement allowed officers to seize the backpack in addition to searching it; both acknowledge that the state was required to establish that any seizure was supported by an independent constitutional justification. See State v. Stinstrom , 261 Or. App. 186, 190-91, 322 P.3d 1076 (2014) ().
Before addressing the parties’ competing arguments, we revisit some first principles of search and seizure because those principles, ultimately, are what this case turns on.
At issue is the constitutionality under Article I, section 9, of the warrantless seizure of defendant's backpack. For purposes of that provision, a "seizure" of property "occurs when an officer significantly interferes with a person's possessory or ownership interest in property." State v. Fulmer , 366 Or. 224, 229, 460 P.3d 486 (2020). A "seizure conducted without a warrant is per se unreasonable, unless that * * * seizure falls within one of the specifically established and well delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement." Id . at 230, 460 P.3d 486 (internal quotation marks omitted).
As a procedural matter, in the context of a motion to suppress, the state, not a defendant, bears the burden of demonstrating that a warrantless seizure or search falls within one of the "specifically established and well...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Phillips
...unless justified by one of the established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. State v. Edwards , 304 Or. App. 293, 296, 466 P.3d 1034 (2020).Here, the parties agree that Cutsforth's order for defendant to turn around and put his hands behind his back constituted a se......
-
State v. Peek
...‘occurs when an officer significantly interferes with a person's possessory or ownership interest in property.’ " State v. Edwards , 304 Or. App. 293, 296, 466 P.3d 1034 (2020) (quoting State v. Fulmer , 366 Or. 224, 229, 460 P.3d 486 (2020) ). We have located no case holding that the condu......
-
State v. Wilcox
...State v. Wilcox, 323 Or.App. 271, 276, 522 P.3d 926 (2022). In doing so, the court relied on its decision in State v. Edwards, 304 Or.App. 293, 466 P.3d 1034 (2020), which involved the seizure and search of a backpack following a criminal arrest. The state petitioned for review, arguing tha......