State v. Sanchez-Anderson

• Decision Date: 27 November 2019
• Docket Number: A163078
• Citation: 300 Or.App. 767,455 P.3d 531
• Parties: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Rosa Maria SANCHEZ-ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

300 Or.App. 767
455 P.3d 531

STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Rosa Maria SANCHEZ-ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

A163078

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and submitted January 9, 2018.
November 27, 2019

David Sherbo-Huggins, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. Also on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.

Peenesh Shah, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.

Before DeHoog, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and Aoyagi, Judge.^*

DEHOOG, P. J.

455 P.3d 533

300 Or.App. 768

Dependent appeals a judgment convicting her of three controlled-substance offenses: unlawful possession of heroin, ORS 475.854 ; unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894 ; and unlawful delivery of methamphetamine, ORS 475.890(2). Defendant assigns error to two rulings of the trial court, in which the court (1) denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence found pursuant to a warrant authorizing a search of three cellphones that defendant had in her possession at the time of her arrest; and (2) denied defendant’s motion to suppress evidence derived from a warrantless search of defendant incident to her arrest for suspected drug possession. With respect to the warrantless search incident to arrest, defendant argues that the arresting officers lacked probable cause to arrest her for unlawful possession of methamphetamine, because they had no reason to believe that she had constructively possessed any of the drugs and related items that they discovered in a vehicle that she had recently ridden in.

The state responds that our constructive-possession case law is inapposite, and argues that, under the totality of the circumstances—including facts suggesting defendant’s involvement in a sizeable drug-trafficking operation with the vehicle’s driver—there was probable cause to arrest her for unlawful methamphetamine possession. The state alternatively argues that the discovery of an empty, but used, syringe under defendant’s seat supports an inference that she constructively possessed the drugs found in the vehicle. We conclude that the arresting officers lacked probable cause to arrest defendant and that, therefore, the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result of that unlawful arrest. Because we further conclude that the cellphones at issue in defendant’s other assignment of error were obtained as a result of that unlawful search and that the evidence of their contents was therefore subject to suppression, there is no need to decide whether the challenged warrant properly authorized a search of the phones. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.

When reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, "[w]e state the facts consistently with the trial court’s

300 Or.App. 769

explicit and implicit factual findings," provided that there is evidence in the record to support them. State v. Keller , 280 Or. App. 249, 250, 380 P.3d 1144 (2016) ; see also State v. Suppah , 358 Or. 565, 567 n. 1, 369 P.3d 1108 (2016) (applying the same standard). In this case, the relevant facts are undisputed.

While on routine patrol, Officer Haugen of the Beaverton Police Department noticed a passenger truck with out-of-state license plates in the parking lot of a motel that he knew to be frequented by drug traffickers. Haugen determined that the truck was a rental vehicle; he also knew that rental vehicles were a common choice among those engaged in drug trafficking. His interest thus piqued, Haugen approached the truck and saw, through a window, a lock box and "a large digital scale box," both located on the floor behind the passenger seat. Haugen contacted motel staff and learned that a man named Mauel was associated with the truck and had rented a room at the motel. Haugen ran a records check on Mauel and discovered that he was on post-prison supervision for heroin possession. Moments later, Haugen saw Mauel leaving a motel room accompanied by defendant. The two approached the rental truck, and Mauel got into the driver’s seat while defendant sat on the passenger side. Suspecting potential drug activity, Haugen first watched as Mauel began to drive away, and then, when he saw Mauel commit a minor traffic infraction while leaving the parking lot, Haugen initiated a traffic stop so that he could investigate further. Mauel, who was visibly nervous, handed Haugen a Washington driver’s license and, as proof of registration, a rental agreement for the truck. As Mauel gathered those documents, Haugen asked defendant for her name and date of

455 P.3d 534

birth. Defendant provided that information, at which point Haugen "reminded her that she was free to leave." Haugen noted that defendant appeared sickly and had facial sores, two signs that Haugen associated with "active" heroin or methamphetamine use, but it does not appear that he believed that defendant was under the influence at the time. After Haugen said that defendant could leave, she stepped out of the truck and began to walk away, taking her purse with her. While still at the scene, Haugen ran a records check using the information that

300 Or.App. 770

defendant had provided, but his inquiry came back "unable to locate." That result indicated to Haugen that defendant had given him false information, behavior he viewed as "consistent with somebody that has something to hide from the police."¹

Meanwhile, another officer with a drug-detection dog had arrived at Haugen’s request. When that officer told Haugen that the dog had alerted on Mauel’s truck, Haugen proceeded to search the vehicle and its contents. He found considerable evidence of illegal drug activity in the lock box, the digital scale box, and the center console. In the lock box were "[m]ultiple used syringes that had a white crystal substance inside of them, [and] a digital scale with a brown-colored substance on it." Based on his training and experience, Haugen recognized the two substances to be methamphetamine and heroin. The digital scale box contained a large digital scale "caked" with methamphetamine residue and more than 20 "pretty good-sized," unused baggies that Haugen associated with the sale of larger quantities of drugs. The center console contained over $4,000 in cash, which Haugen also associated with drug trafficking. Haugen also found "a used, uncapped syringe"—one as to which he noted no drug residue—underneath the passenger seat, where it was "easily accessible to [defendant] but not Mauel."² In addition to finding physical evidence of drug possession and trafficking, Haugen concluded, based on his "experience dealing with the drug culture," that defendant and Mauel were most likely involved in a sexual relationship that involved giving or discounting drugs in exchange for sex.

Based on the foregoing observations, Haugen determined that he had probable cause to arrest defendant for

300 Or.App. 771

unlawful possession of methamphetamine. At Haugen’s direction, another officer located defendant and arrested her. Incident to that arrest, the officer conducted a warrantless search of defendant and her purse, where he found methamphetamine, multiple syringes, empty baggies, a digital scale, and three cellphones. Defendant also had more than $600 in cash hidden in her bra. A subsequent warrant search of the cellphones resulted in the discovery of text messages that reflected her involvement in drug trafficking. Defendant moved pretrial to suppress evidence derived both from the warrantless search incident to arrest and the warrant search of her cellphones, but the trial court denied both motions. Defendant waived jury and, following a bench trial based on stipulated facts, was convicted on all counts.

On appeal, defendant assigns error to the denial of each of her motions to suppress. We begin with defendant’s argument that her arrest and related search were not supported by probable cause. Defendant contends that her mere presence in the truck and her resulting proximity to the drug residue and related evidence of drug possession and trafficking were insufficient to support an objectively reasonable belief that, more likely than not, she actively or constructively possessed any of those items. Emphasizing that none of her belongings were found near the things that Haugen found, that she made no "furtive" movements when Haugen contacted

455 P.3d 535

her, and that she had been a passenger in Mauel’s truck for only a short time before Haugen stopped them, defendant argues that there was no indication that she was even aware that drugs were in the vehicle, much less that they were under her ownership or control. As for her use of a false name and Haugen’s hypothesis that she and Mauel were involved in a sex-for-drugs relationship, defendant suggests that those considerations add nothing to support the inference that she had the right to exercise control over...