State v. Keller
| Decision Date | 09 June 1972 |
| Citation | 94 Adv.Sh. 1818,497 P.2d 868,9 Or.App. 613 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Barbara Jean KELLER, Respondent. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Walter L. Barrie, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., and John W. Osburn, Sol Gen., Salem.
Howard R. Lonergan, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Glenn A. Geurts, Portland.
Before LANGTRY, P.J., and FOLEY and FORT, JJ.
The state appeals from an order suppressing as evidence illegal drugs taken from defendant's automobile after her arrest. Evidence at the suppression hearing was that two police officers saw the defendant driving her automobile on the streets of Portland on October 17, 1971. They had stopped her for driving without a license on October 4; therefore, they stopped her to learn if she had obtained a license and found she did not have one. A radio check indicated her license was under suspension. Therefore, they placed her under arrest and placed her in their vehicle. The only other occupant of defendant's car was a male companion who was intoxicated. They placed him under arrest for being drunk on the street. When the officers 'frisked' him, they found bullets in his pocket; consequently they looked on the floor where he had been sitting and discovered a pistol. They then arrested him for possession of a concealed weapon.
The officers called for a tow truck to remove the automobile from the street and in accordance with police department operating procedure, inventoried its contents. On the floor under the place where defendant had been sitting was an open cosmetics case in which numerous syringes and similar paraphernalia were visible. On the floor of the back seat was a fishing tackle box, the latch of which was broken. It was tied around with red wire. The police united the wire, looked inside, and saw the illegal narcotics which formed the basis of the present charge and which the defendant moved to have suppressed.
The suppression hearing was concluded December 20, 1971. Our decision in State v. Raiford, Or.App., 93 Adv.Sh. 1302, 490 P.2d 1036 (1971), in which an inventory search was approved came down on November 26, 1971. The trial court received a copy of our opinion in Raiford on the morning of the day when it made its order. The trial court distinguished Raiford on the basis that the credit card which was seized there was in plain view, whereas the narcotics here were not. The court held that the police had no authority in the case at bar to untie the fishing tackle box and look inside without obtaining a warrant.
We do not agree that our holding in Raiford is distinguishable under the facts at bar. Our opinion in Raiford made no mention that the credit card was in plain view. We based our opinion upon the reasoning in State v. Montague, 73 Wash.2d 381, 438 P.2d 571 (1968). There, the Washington Supreme Court approved an inventory search of a vehicle after the driver was arrested in which police looked into a paper bag and found marihuana. We see little difference in look into a closed paper bag and looking into a box no more securely closed than was the box in the case at bar.
Defendant has urged upon us Arizona v. Ruiz, Ariz.App., 495 P.2d 516 (1972), and Boulet v. Arizona (In Re One 1965 Econoline, I.D. # E16JH702043, Ariz.L. EC--7887), Ariz.App., 495 P.2d 504 (1972). In Boulet the Arizona Court of Appeals reviewed cases concerning inventory searches of vehicles and concluded that it would join those states which adopt the view that inventory searches are not reasonable under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The California Supreme Court came to a similar conclusion in Mozzetti v. Superior Court, 4 Cal.3d 699, 94 Cal.Rptr. 412, 484 P.2d 84 (1971). 1 The California and Arizona courts expressed disbelief that it is necessary for police to make inventories in order to protect themselves from spurious claims of theft, or for loss or destruction of property when vehicles become their responsibility by reason of arrest of the owners or occupants thereof. We and the Supreme Court of the State of Washington in Montague have come to the opposite conclusion. The Montague decision is supported by cases cited from courts in five states and several federal circuits.
After reconsideration in the light of the California and Arizona decisions, we continue to agree with the reasoning of the Montague case. In this type of case, the defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lowe v. Caldwell
...a mixed reception in jurisdictions beyond California.12 Oregon, New York and the Ninth Circuit have rejected it. See State v. Keller, (Or.1972) 497 P.2d 868; People v. Sullivan, 29 N.Y.2d 69, 323 N.Y.S.2d 945, 272 N.E.2d 464; United States v. Mitchell, 458 F.2d 960 (9th Cir.).13 Only Arizon......
-
State v. Nemrod
...Although there are cases to the contrary (People v. Sullivan, 29 N.Y.2d 69, 323 N.Y.S.2d 945, 272 N.E.2d 464 (1971); State v. Keller, 497 P.2d 868 (Or.App.1972)); we are persuaded by the logic of Mozzetti v. Superior Court of Sacramento County, 4 Cal.3d 699, 94 Cal.Rptr. 412, 484 P.2d 84 (1......
-
State v. Gwinn
...drug. There is no indication in the opinion that the eyeglass case was closed or that its contents were not in plain view. State v. Keller, Or., 497 P.2d 868 (1972), in which the police found bullets in an occupant's pocket and saw a gun in open view on the floor of the automobile where he ......
-
State v. Hirsch
...The Court of Appeals by per curiam opinion, State v. Hirsch, 12 Or.App. 20, 503 P.2d 726 (1972), held: 'Affirmed. State v. Keller, 9 Or.App. 613, 497 P.2d 868, Sup.Ct. Review allowed We granted review because the Court of Appeals relied upon their decision in Keller, in which we granted rev......