State v. Ward
| Decision Date | 24 April 1974 |
| Citation | 519 P.2d 1269,16 Or.App. 556 |
| Parties | STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Pamela Yvonne WARD, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
John K. Hoover, Deputy Public Defender, Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Gary D. Babcock, Public Defender, Salem.
Doyle L. Schiffman, Dist. Atty., Roseburg, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Brian R. Barnes, Deputy Dist. Atty., Roseburg.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and LANGTRY and TANZER, JJ.
The defendant was convicted of criminal activity in drugs in violation of ORS 167.207. She assigns as error the denial of her motion to suppress as evidence marijuana and related paraphernalia found in her purse.
The chain of events which culminated in the discovery of the marijuana began when Officer Gary Miller of the Roseburg Police Department stopped a car for speeding. The driver had no operator's license and no vehicle registration certificate. Defendant and another passenger were asked for identification. Defendant produced a Medicare card from the State of California and the other passenger produced no identification. The three were then separated and they gave inconsistent statements as to their destinations and the names of each other. A stolen vehicle check disclosed the registered owner to be someone other than the driver, but it did not show the automobile to be stolen.
Officer Miller placed the driver under arrest and, being unsatisfied as to their identification, he requested the defendant and the other passenger to accompany the arrested driver to the police station. They agreed to do so. The automobile was locked and left at the scene. The defendant asked if she might take her purse along rather than leave it in the locked car and the officer consented, but kept the purse in his possession.
At the police station, the driver and the other passenger were placed in custody and the defendant was taken to an interview room. While Officer Miller was attempting to call the registered owner of the car, the defendant said that she had her cigarettes in her purse. Officer Miller was concerned about the possibility that the purse might contain a weapon and it was sufficiently capacious to do so. Therefore, before returning it to her, he opened it and smelled 'a strong odor of marijuana' which he recognized from his training. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Warner
...within the meaning of ORS 131.605(5). See, State v. Harris, 25 Or.App. 71, 547 P.2d 1394, Sup.Ct. review denied (1976); State v. Ward, 16 Or.App. 556, 519 P.2d 1269, Sup.Ct. review denied As the United States Supreme Court observed in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 145, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 192......
-
State v. Fairley
...does not seem to be the constitutional limit where a greater intrusion is reasonable under the circumstances. See also State v. Ward, 16 Or.App. 556, 519 P.2d 1269, rev. den. Where a police officer has been put in a situation which requires quick action in order for the officer to protect h......
-
State v. Vanderberg
...of his experience that criminal activity could be afoot. Terry v. Ohio, supra. Thus we hold that the stop was valid. See State v. Ward, 16 Or.App. 556, 519 P.2d 1269, Sup.Ct. Review denied (1974); State v. Head, 13 Or.App. 317, 509 P.2d 52, Sup.Ct. Review denied The sequence of events which......