State v. Pidcock
Decision Date | 20 September 1988 |
Citation | 306 Or. 335,759 P.2d 1092 |
Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent on review, v. Thomas Henry PIDCOCK, Petitioner on review. CC 10-85-09438; CA A40456; SC S34991. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Rives Kistler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondent on review.
Defendant appealed his convictions on two counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(4)(b), contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Pidcock, 89 Or.App. 443, 749 P.2d 597 (1988). We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals recited the stipulated facts of the parties as follows:
removed. There were two manila envelopes, one sealed. The glasses were wire-rimmed with a fairly thin black plastic coated substance on the wire, which was the wire Larson had observed. The briefcase was not booby-trapped.
89 Or.App. at 445-47, 749 P.2d 597.
The record establishes that defendant never claimed the briefcase, apparently fearing apprehension.
The sheriff did not obtain a warrant for the search of the briefcase or its contents. Defendant moved to suppress the briefcase and its contents, relying on Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution and the federal Fourth Amendment. Defendant argues: (1) The police had no authority to open and search the briefcase; (2) the police had no probable cause to believe that the briefcase contained contraband; and (3) once the police opened the briefcase, they needed a warrant to open and search the manila envelopes. The Court of Appeals rejected these arguments and held that when defendant made no effort to claim or recover the briefcase after he learned the briefcase and contents were in police custody, that defendant "abandoned" the property in a constitutional sense. The Court of Appeals stated: "One who acts to abandon property cannot claim a constitutional violation, even if the act was done to avoid police action." 89 Or.App. at 448, 749 P.2d 597.
We disagree with the Court of Appeals' analysis, although we affirm the result. Defendant did not "abandon" the briefcase until after the deputies had opened the briefcase and opened the envelopes and tested their contents without a warrant. When the deputies opened the briefcase and tested the contents, defendant was still actively attempting to recover that property. Defendant nevertheless loses the motion to suppress, because the deputies were not searching the briefcase or contents for contraband related to any criminal activity. Rather, when the police opened the briefcase and the envelopes they were simply trying to identify the owner.
Finders of lost property have a statutory duty to attempt to return the property to its owner. When the finder of the property turned it over to law enforcement officers, on the finder's own initiative, the deputies were placed in the position of the finder. ORS 98.005 provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Webster
...even absent a warrant or probable cause. (See United States v. O'Bryant (11th Cir.1985) 775 F.2d 1528, 1534; State v. Pidcock (1988) 306 Or. 335, 759 P.2d 1092, 1095, cert. den. (1989) 489 U.S. 1011, 109 S.Ct. 1120, 103 L.Ed.2d 183; cf. South Dakota v. Opperman (1976) 428 U.S. 364, 96 S.Ct.......
-
Morris v. State, 94-187
...in wallets and other personal effects that does not disappear because the personal effect has been lost or mislaid. See State v. Pidcock, 306 Or. 335, 759 P.2d 1092, cert. den. 489 U.S. 1011, 109 S.Ct. 1120, 103 L.Ed.2d 183 (1988); State v. Morton, 110 Or.App. 219, 822 P.2d 148 (1991). The ......
-
State v. Follett
...from a politically accountable body.' State v. Bridewell, [306 Or. 231, 239, 759 P.2d 1054 (1988) ]; see also State v. Pidcock, 306 Or 335, 341-42, 759 P2d 1092 (1988); Nelson v. Lane County, 304 Or 97, 101-06, 743 P2d 692 (1987). Only if that authority exists and if discovery otherwise mee......
-
Knight v. Commonwealth
...searching officer knew to whom the wallet belonged and was not searching it for purposes of identification); State v. Pidcock, 306 Or. 335, 338-39, 759 P.2d 1092, 1094–95 (1988) (a misplaced briefcase that was not deliberately left behind was not abandoned; however, the court nonetheless up......
-
Criminal Law - Franklin J. Hogue
...at 295. 35. Id. at 879 & n.7, 663 S.E.2d at 295 & n.7 (collecting cases). 36. Id. at 879, 663 S.E.2d at 295 (citing State v. Pidcock, 759 P.2d 1092, 1094-95 (Or. 1988); State v. Kealey, 907 P.2d 319, 326 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995)). 37. U.S. Const. amend. IV. 38. See Wolf, 291 Ga. App. at 879, 6......