State v. Kock
| Citation | 725 P.2d 1285,302 Or. 29 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent on review, v. Joseph Dean KOCK, Petitioner on review. CC 84-03-3411-C/CA A31589/SC S32171. |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1986 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oregon |
Thomas J. Crabtree, of Crabtree & Rahmsdorff, Bend, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioner on review.
Stephen F. Peifer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the response to the petition were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and Virginia L. Linder, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before PETERSON, C.J., and LENT, LINDE, CAMPBELL, CARSON and JONES, JJ. JONES, Justice.
Defendant petitions this court to reverse his conviction for theft of a package of diapers from his employer's store, claiming that the Court of Appeals erred when it upheld the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress crime evidence seized from his automobile. He asserted that the police lacked probable cause and exigent circumstances to conduct a warrantless search of his car or to seize the package, that they lacked probable cause to arrest him and that the search of his car and seizure of the package were not reasonably incident to a valid arrest. The Court of Appeals held that the search of the car and seizure of the package were incident to a valid arrest, 74 Or.App. 522, 703 P.2d 267.
In defendant's petition for review to this court he claimed that the warrantless search of his automobile and the seizure of the package were unlawful and not justified as a search and seizure incident to his arrest. We allowed review to decide whether the warrantless search of the vehicle and the seizure of the package violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.
The historical facts as set forth by the trial court and the Court of Appeals are not disputed: Commencing at about 3:30 a.m. on February 8, 1984, two police officers watched the parking lot and entry area of the store where defendant worked. They were in a police van parked in the lot, 20 to 25 feet from where defendant's car was parked. The store manager had told the police before the surveillance that defendant did not have permission to take merchandise from the store.
Defendant normally worked in the store between 4 a.m. and 6:30 a.m., during which hours it was not open for business. The officers saw him come to work and enter the store between 3:30 and 4 a.m. He did not take anything into the store with him. At 5:42 a.m. they saw him leave the store, pushing a floor washing machine with a two-foot long brown box covered by a newspaper on top of it. Defendant parked the machine by a loading dock, took the box to the car, removed a package from the box and put the package in the car. Officer Hartley testified that he observed defendant's actions from the police van, that he saw the interior light of the car go on when defendant opened the door and that the package appeared to be store merchandise, but that he could not identify writing on the package or its contents. Defendant placed the package behind the front seat on the passenger side and partially covered it with a pair of pants. After smoking a cigarette, defendant returned to the store, taking with him the washing machine, the brown box and the newspaper.
The officers immediately approached the car and saw the package through the window. They still could not identify its contents. They opened the door, seized the package and discovered that it contained diapers. The officer then called for police assistance and, when it arrived a few minutes later, they entered the store and arrested defendant without a warrant.
We allowed review to decide whether the warrantless entry of the car to retrieve the suspected stolen property was lawful as a search incident to arrest and whether the search of defendant's car was lawful either under the "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement as described in State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268, 721 P.2d 1357 (1986), or, alternatively, under an individualized showing of exigent circumstances.
As to the first issue, the Court of Appeals reasoned that although the search preceded the formal arrest of defendant, the search was virtually contemporaneous with the arrest and therefore the fact that the search preceded the arrest was of no moment. But here the search was independent of the arrest. The officers searched the vehicle and, only after finding the stolen goods, elected to arrest defendant. There is no demonstration in this record that the police felt they had any reason to arrest defendant irrespective of what they found in the vehicle. The search did not flow from defendant's arrest nor was it an incident to his arrest. The Court of Appeals' reliance on State v. Caraher, 293 Or. 741, 653 P.2d 942 (1982), was misplaced.
As to the second issue, we emphasized in State v. Brown, supra, that we were not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Rosenfelt
...the state's burden to show that both probable cause and exigent circumstances were present at the time of the search."); State v. Kock, 302 Or. 29, 725 P.2d 1285 (1986) (holding that a search of a parked, immobile car requires a warrant or proof that exigency other than the vehicle's inhere......
-
State v. Stoudamire
...did here. There may be a categorical exigency for the search of automobiles under certain circumstances, see, e.g., State v. Kock, 302 Or. 29, 33, 725 P.2d 1285 (1986) ("Searches of automobiles that have just been lawfully stopped by police may be searched without a warrant and without a de......
-
State v. Tanner
...(or the lack thereof) in the stolen goods or contraband seized as a consequence of the unlawful search. See, e.g., State v. Kock, 302 Or. 29, 725 P.2d 1285 (1986) (suppression of stolen goods seized during unlawful search of parked automobile); State v. Perry, 298 Or. 21, 688 P.2d 827 (1984......
-
State v. Owens
...do so and cannot persuade a judge that they obtained prior consent to do so, or in very limited circumstances such as in State v. Kock, 302 Or. 29, 725 P.2d 1285 (1986). This reversal of direction is as unnecessary as it is tragic. It may seem futile to dissent at length when the members of......
-
Toward the decentralization of criminal procedure: state constitutional law and selective disincorporation.
...State v. Ratcliff, 642 N.E.2d 31, 34-35 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994); Hall v. State, 766 P.2d 1002, 1005 (Okra. Crim. App. 1988); State v. Kock, 725 P.2d 1285, 1287 (Or. 1986); State v. Brown, 721 P.2d 1357, 1360-62 (Or. 1986); Commonwealth v. Rosenfelt, 662 A.2d 1131, 1145 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995); S......
-
Social Capital and Protecting the Rights of the Accused in the American States
...445, 656 A.2d 409 (1995); State v. Young,87 N.J. 132, 432 A.2d 874 (1981); State v. Gomez, 122 N.M. 777, 932 P.2d 1 (1999);State v. Kock,302 Or. 29, 725 P.2d 1285 (1986); Commonwealth v.White, 543 Pa. 45,669 A.2d 896 (1995); State v. Larocco,794 P.2d 460 (Utah 1990); State v. Sacca, 159Vt. ......
-
§ 13.01 AUTOMOBILE SEARCH WARRANT EXCEPTION: GENERAL RULES
...Elison, 14 P.3d 456 (Mont. 2000); State v. Sterndale, 656 A.2d 409 (N.H. 1995); State v. Cooke, 751 A.2d 92 (N.J. 2000); State v. Kock, 725 P.2d 1285 (Or. 1986); State v. Larocco, 794 P.2d 460 (Utah 1990) (plurality opinion); State v. Patterson, 774 P.2d 10 (Wash. 1989) (all holding that, a......
-
§ 13.01 Automobile Search Warrant Exception: General Rules
...Elison, 14 P.3d 456 (Mont. 2000); State v. Sterndale, 656 A.2d 409 (N.H. 1995); State v. Cooke, 751 A.2d 92 (N.J. 2000); State v. Kock, 725 P.2d 1285 (Or. 1986); State v. Larocco, 794 P.2d 460 (Utah 1990) (plurality opinion); State v. Patterson, 774 P.2d 10 (Wash. 1989) (all holding that, a......