State v. Hester
Decision Date | 01 April 1998 |
Citation | 153 Or.App. 247,956 P.2d 1052 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Carolyn Elizabeth HESTER, Appellant. C951612CR; CA A94876. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Ingrid A. MacFarlane, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.
Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Hardy Myers, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.
Before WARREN, P.J., and EDMONDS and ARMSTRONG, JJ.
Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992. She appeals the trial court's denial of her pre-trial motion to suppress evidence of methamphetamine in her possession. We affirm.
On June 8, 1995, at approximately 3:00 a.m., Officer Noragon stopped a car in which defendant was a passenger when the driver failed to signal, apparently as she pulled over to pick up a friend. The car was owned by defendant. Noragon issued the driver a citation for driving while uninsured and told the driver and defendant that they were free to leave. Defendant and the driver then waited in the car at the scene of the stop while Trisha Drey, the person who defendant and the driver intended to pick up, looked for some personal property that she had lost in the bushes along the side of the road. Drey asked Noragon if he would help her look for her property. He agreed, turned off his overhead lights on his patrol car and assisted Drey by shining a flashlight into the bushes. They were unsuccessful in finding the lost property, and, at that point, the officer again advised the occupants of the vehicle that they were free to leave.
Noragon then began to walk back to his patrol car. The driver of the car started up the engine in the vehicle and began to roll slowly forward. Noragon then walked back to the passenger side of the car and asked defendant through the open passenger window if he could talk to her for just a minute. Defendant agreed and got out of the vehicle. Noragon then advised her that she was free to leave, but also explained that it was part of his job to ask about property, drugs and guns. He asked defendant if she was in possession of any of those items. She indicated that she was not.
Noragon then requested if he could search the vehicle "for this type of property," and defendant agreed. Noragon asked defendant if she had any weapons on her person. Defendant said "No," but that she did have a knife in her purse. Noragon asked if he could remove the knife from the purse, and defendant said she wanted to remove the knife. Noragon informed her that "for officer safety reasons," he needed to remove the knife. After a discussion, defendant allowed Noragon to remove the knife. While searching for the knife, Noragon found a box that he recognized as a scale. Defendant said the scale was her boyfriend's and consented to Noragon's request to examine it. Noragon opened the box and confirmed that it was a scale.
Noragon also saw a silver container in the purse. He requested permission to look inside it, and defendant agreed. Noragon discovered "50 to 100 small little plastic baggies," which defendant explained were used to store jewelry. Noragon recognized the baggies as common receptacles used to package drugs. He asked defendant where he would find drugs in her property. Defendant then picked up her wallet from the hood of the vehicle, removed a small plastic baggy from the front zipper pocket and gave it to Noragon. At that point, Noragon advised defendant of her Miranda rights and placed her under arrest for the charge that led to her conviction and is the subject of this appeal. The substance in the baggy later tested positive for methamphetamine.
On appeal, the only argument that defendant makes is that Noragon violated ORS 810.410(3)(b) 1 when he asked if he could search for drugs. She contends that the state failed its burden to establish that the traffic stop had ended and that the case is controlled by our holding in State v. Hadley, 146 Or.App. 166, 932 P.2d 1194 (1997). In Hadley, we held that
146 Or.App. at 171-72, 932 P.2d 1194.
We conclude that the circumstances in this case demonstrate that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Stock, D0300780M.
...v. Rocha-Ramos, 161 Or.App. 306, 985 P.2d 217 (1999) (officer testified that drugs are often packaged in such bags); State v. Hester, 153 Or.App. 247, 956 P.2d 1052, rev. den., 327 Or. 432, 966 P.2d 222 (1998) (same), they obviously have a multitude of other benign uses. In any event, plast......
-
State v. Elverud
...is free to engage in conversation a person who decides not to leave the scene of a stop after it concludes, see State v. Hester, 153 Or.App. 247, 956 P.2d 1052 (1998), 1 the majority concludes that Hess' question did not unlawfully extend the traffic stop in violation of ORS The majority's ......
-
State v. Hester
...222 966 P.2d 222 327 Or. 432 State v. Carolyn Elizabeth Hester NOS. A94876, S45410 Supreme Court of Oregon July 21, 1998 153 Or.App. 247, 956 P.2d 1052 ...