State v. Scott
| Decision Date | 24 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | A169340 |
| Citation | 317 Or.App. 777,505 P.3d 1007 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Julie Ann SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Morgen Daniels, 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.
Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge.
Defendant challenges her convictions for second-degree theft and identity theft, raising two assignments of error. First, she asserts that the trial court erred by denying her motion to suppress evidence found in her purse, arguing that the police conducted a warrantless search that was not justified by any exception to the warrant requirement. Second, she asserts that the trial court erred by denying a second motion to suppress statements that she made to the police, arguing that she unequivocally invoked her right to remain silent and her right to counsel, and that, alternatively, she made an equivocal invocation that required the police to clarify her intent. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the trial court did not err in denying the motions to suppress because the search of her purse was permissible under the search incident to arrest doctrine and further conclude that defendant did not invoke her right to remain silent or to counsel. Accordingly, we affirm.
We review the denial of a motion to suppress for errors of law, and we are bound by the trial court's findings of fact so long as they are supported by constitutionally sufficient evidence in the record. State v. Maciel-Figueroa , 361 Or. 163, 165-66, 389 P.3d 1121 (2017). Where the trial court did not make express findings and there is evidence in the record from which a finding could have been decided in more than one way, we will presume that the court decided the facts consistently with its ultimate conclusion. Id. at 166, 389 P.3d 1121. We describe the facts in a manner consistent with those standards.
Defendant was arrested following a report of theft from a Home Depot in Beaverton. Loss prevention officers reported to police that a woman wearing a pink jacket and pink hat, along with a man, had stolen power drill kits and were driving away from the store in a red Honda Civic with mismatched license plates. Beaverton police responded, found a car matching that description, and initiated a "high-risk stop" where multiple police cars responded, and officers removed the vehicle's occupants one at a time at gun point. Defendant, who was in the right-front passenger seat, was ordered out of the car, handcuffed, and placed in the back of a patrol car. An officer informed her of her Miranda rights, which she confirmed that she understood.
After police removed all four occupants of the car, Beaverton Police Officer Buelt searched the car and documented items found inside. In the back seat, he found two new DeWalt power tools with security tags still attached and stickers indicating that they came from the nearby Beaverton Home Depot, and he found a black backpack containing new, unopened Ring doorbell cameras. In the center console and near the driver's seat, Buelt found a long flathead screwdriver, a Leatherman-style tool, and a mini wrench. In the car's trunk, Buelt found additional items, including a Milwaukee brand tool set from a Home Depot in Sherwood. On the front passenger side, where defendant had been riding, Buelt found a pink baseball cap and pink or red clothing. On the passenger side floorboard, he found a new, unopened DeWalt power tool sitting next to a beige-colored leather purse.
Buelt photographed the purse on the passenger side floorboard. The top of the purse was open and another box was visible inside the purse, but Buelt was unable to recall any more details about the box when he testified at the suppression hearing. Buelt had investigated thefts from Home Depot before and knew that Home Depot sold small items that shoplifters could conceal in purses and other bags, so while Buelt searched the black backpack, another officer searched the purse to see if it contained additional stolen merchandise or information that would identify defendant. Inside the purse, police found a driver's license belonging to Spacek, whom officers thought resembled defendant and initially mistook for defendant.
Before questioning defendant, Buelt spoke with the Home Depot loss prevention officer, who confirmed that the three DeWalt tool kits found in the car belonged to the Beaverton Home Depot. Buelt then questioned defendant. He began by confirming with defendant that she had been advised of her Miranda rights and that she understood her rights. Buelt then explained that his goal was to return the property to the businesses that they came from and told defendant that, "Everybody makes mistakes, and everybody wears silly hats, especially when they're drug-driven." He asked defendant if she was a heroin user. Defendant said no and asked if she looked like a heroin user. Buelt replied that she did not and told her that she seemed happy and upbeat.
Buelt then told defendant that the three DeWalt tool sets came from the Beaverton Home Depot, but that he knew that another tool set found in the car came from the Sherwood Home Depot. He also said he found two Ring doorbell cameras in a backpack in the back of the car and asked who the backpack belonged to, and defendant responded that she was not sure. Buelt asked if the Ring cameras came from Home Depot, and defendant said that she was not sure and that she did not "even know what a Ring is." Buelt explained that it was a type of doorbell camera and asked again if defendant knew where they came from, and defendant reiterated that she did not know.
As captured by Buelt's body camera, defendant and Buelt then engaged in the following conversation:
Buelt then explained that he liked people who took responsibility for their actions, gave an example, and asked defendant if she wanted to speak with him. Defendant said, "I'll talk to you," and then went on to make incriminating statements about her involvement in the theft. The trial court found that defendant was "remarkably calm and in control of herself" during the interview.
Defendant was charged with first-degree theft and eight counts of identity theft. Before trial, defendant moved to suppress both evidence found in her purse and her statements to police, asserting, among other arguments, that the search of her purse was not a search incident to arrest and that her statements were elicited in violation of her right to counsel and her right against self-incrimination. The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence with respect to the search of her purse, ruling that the search was lawful under the exception to the warrant requirement of search incident to arrest. The trial court also denied defendant's motion to suppress the statements that she made to Buelt.1
After the court's ruling on the suppression motions, the parties proceeded to a stipulated facts trial, and the trial court found defendant guilty of second-degree theft based on defendant's admissions and guilty of identity theft based on defendant's possession of Spacek's driver's license.2 Defendant timely initiated this appeal. As explained below, we agree with the trial court's ruling that the search of defendant's purse was justified as a search incident to arrest and that defendant did not invoke her right to remain silent or to counsel.
Under Article I, section, 9, of the Oregon Constitution, a warrantless search is per se unreasonable unless it falls within one of the few specifically established and carefully delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement.3 State v. McCarthy , 369 Or. 129, 141, 501 P.3d 478 (2021). If a warrantless search occurs, the state must show that circumstances existing at the time of the search were sufficient to satisfy an exception. State v. Brownlee , 302 Or. App. 594, 602, 461 P.3d 1015 (2020).
One such exception exists for searches conducted "incident to arrest." State v. Mazzola , 356 Or. 804, 811, 345 P.3d 424 (2015). An officer may lawfully search an arrestee without a warrant for three purposes: (1) to protect a police officer's safety; (2) to prevent the destruction of evidence; or (3) to discover evidence of the crime of arrest. Id . Only the third purpose—discovery of evidence of the crime of arrest—is at issue here.
The search incident to arrest exception does not justify an exploratory seizure of everything in the defendant's immediate possession and control based on the prospect that further investigation might reveal that some of the items were stolen or are contraband. State v. Owens , 302 Or. 196, 204-05, 729 P.2d 524 (1986). Rather, the search incident to arrest for evidence of the crime of arrest is constrained by three factors: (1) the crime of arrest, (2) the nature of the evidence establishing that crime, and (3) whether the location searched could reasonably be understood to conceal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Edwards
...small items off the shelves in a drug store and placing them in her purse. Id. at 198, 202, 729 P.2d 524. In State v. Scott , 317 Or. App. 777, 784, 505 P.3d 1007 (2022), it was reasonable to search the defendant's purse incident to her arrest for theft, where she had been seen stealing ite......