State v. Owens
| Decision Date | 26 March 1986 |
| Citation | 78 Or.App. 279,715 P.2d 1351 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Appellant, v. Joetta Renee OWENS, Respondent. 85050972; CA A36677. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Christine Chute, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With her on brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and James E. Mountain, Jr., Sol. Gen., Salem.
Thomas J. Reuter, Lebanon, argued the cause for respondent. With him on brief was Morley, Thomas, Kingsley & Reuter, Lebanon.
Before BUTTLER, P.J., and WARREN and ROSSMAN, JJ.
Defendant is charged with possession of a controlled substance. The state appeals from a pretrial order suppressing evidence seized from her purse at the time of her arrest.
Defendant was observed by a Payless Drug Store security officer taking several items from the shelves in the store and putting them in her purse. The security officer stopped her after she had left the store. At first she denied shoplifting but finally admitted it and returned to the store with the security officer. Defendant refused to empty her purse but did remove some perfume and earrings, which she admitted she had stolen. A police officer arrived as defendant was being advised of her Miranda rights. He asked her permission to search her purse. She refused, stating that everything she had taken was on the table. She then began handing the officer things from her purse. She pulled out a small clutch purse, opened it and permitted the officer a brief glimpse of its contents, then closed it.
The officer asked defendant to permit him to have a closer look at the clutch purse, because he thought he saw some items "that she possibly shouldn't be having." He testified that he had seen what appeared to be a mirror case and a brown vial containing white powder and that, based on his experience, he believed that what he had seen was narcotics paraphernalia. Defendant eventually handed the clutch purse to the officer after he said that he would take it from her. In searching it, he found, in addition to the items he had already observed, a clear plastic packet containing white powder. When asked about the vial and packet, defendant said that they were not hers and that she thought that the powder was cocaine. The officer seized the clutch purse and its contents and sent them to a crime laboratory for analysis.
The trial court ruled that the search of the purse was not reasonably related to defendant's arrest for theft, and suppressed the evidence. We conclude that the search of defendant's purse, including the small clutch purse within the purse, was reasonably related to defendant's arrest for theft and was reasonable in time scope and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Owens
...in State v. Westlund, 75 Or.App. 43, 705 P.2d 208, aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 302 Or. 225, 729 P.2d 541 (1986). State v. Owens, 78 Or.App. 279, 715 P.2d 1351 (1986). Both defendant and the state petitioned for review. Defendant argues that the search of her purse was not reasonably relat......
-
State v. Owens
...1304 719 P.2d 1304 301 Or. 193 State v. Owens (Joetta Renee) NOS. A36677, S32804 Supreme Court of Oregon MAY 30, 1986 78 Or.App. 279, 715 P.2d 1351 (State's ALLOWED. ...