State v. Caraher

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Caraher

637 P.2d 217, 55 Or. App. 113, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 3769

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedDecember 7, 1981

DocketNo. C80-12-34315, CA A20330

StatusPublished

This text of 637 P.2d 217 (State v. Caraher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Caraher, 637 P.2d 217, 55 Or. App. 113, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 3769 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.

The issue in this criminal case is whether the closed coin compartment of a wallet removed from defendant’s purse following her arrest and while she was being transported to jail could be searched by the police without a warrant, absent probable cause and exigent circumstances. The trial court ruled that it could be searched.¹ We agree and, therefore, affirm.

After defendant’s arrest, her purse was taken by one of the arresting officers. While enroute to the jail, that officer searched the purse, including the wallet contained therein. Inside the wallet’s closed coin compartment, the officer found a piece of paper which contained one cross-topped tablet and chunks of another cross-topped tablet. Subsequent laboratory analysis confirmed the presence of a controlled substance in both tablets. Defendant’s pre-trial motion to suppress was denied by the trial court. She then waived trial by jury, stipulated to the evidence and was convicted by the court.

The issues here have been narrowed. Defendant does not dispute that the state had probable cause to arrest her, nor does she object to the seizure of her purse. She objects only to the search of her wallet. Defendant relies on Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 US 753, 99 S Ct 2586, 61 L Ed 2d 235 (1979); and United States v. Chadwick, 433 US 1, 97 S Ct 2476, 53 L Ed 2d 538 (1977).² The state does not contend it had probable cause independent of the original arrest to believe the wallet contained contraband or that there were exigent circumstances [116]*116during the period defendant was being transported to the booking facility. Rather, the state contends that defendant’s purse and its contents, including the wallet, were searched incident to a lawful custodial arrest.

In State v. Brown, 291 Or 642, 655, 634 P2d 212 (1981), the Supreme Court held:

“* * * that the police without a warrant may search a closed container seized from the person of an individual during the booking process at the place of detention as an incident to a lawful arrest. The search may be made independent of probable cause other than the lawful arrest and without exigent circumstances. The search of the person includes the opening of small containers found on the person or in clothing worn by the arrested individual.”

We see no reason to distinguish this case from Brown merely because defendant’s purse was searched while she was enroute to the booking facility rather than after she arrived there.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

VAN HOOMISSEN, J.

The issue in this criminal case is whether the closed coin compartment of a wallet removed from defendant’s purse following her arrest and while she was being transported to jail could be searched by the police without a warrant, absent probable cause and exigent circumstances. The trial court ruled that it could be searched.¹ We agree and, therefore, affirm.

After defendant’s arrest, her purse was taken by one of the arresting officers. While enroute to the jail, that officer searched the purse, including the wallet contained therein. Inside the wallet’s closed coin compartment, the officer found a piece of paper which contained one cross-topped tablet and chunks of another cross-topped tablet. Subsequent laboratory analysis confirmed the presence of a controlled substance in both tablets. Defendant’s pre-trial motion to suppress was denied by the trial court. She then waived trial by jury, stipulated to the evidence and was convicted by the court.

The issues here have been narrowed. Defendant does not dispute that the state had probable cause to arrest her, nor does she object to the seizure of her purse. She objects only to the search of her wallet. Defendant relies on Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 US 753, 99 S Ct 2586, 61 L Ed 2d 235 (1979); and United States v. Chadwick, 433 US 1, 97 S Ct 2476, 53 L Ed 2d 538 (1977).² The state does not contend it had probable cause independent of the original arrest to believe the wallet contained contraband or that there were exigent circumstances [116]*116during the period defendant was being transported to the booking facility. Rather, the state contends that defendant’s purse and its contents, including the wallet, were searched incident to a lawful custodial arrest.

In State v. Brown, 291 Or 642, 655, 634 P2d 212 (1981), the Supreme Court held:

“* * * that the police without a warrant may search a closed container seized from the person of an individual during the booking process at the place of detention as an incident to a lawful arrest. The search may be made independent of probable cause other than the lawful arrest and without exigent circumstances. The search of the person includes the opening of small containers found on the person or in clothing worn by the arrested individual.”

We see no reason to distinguish this case from Brown merely because defendant’s purse was searched while she was enroute to the booking facility rather than after she arrived there.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

637 P.2d 217, 55 Or. App. 113, 1981 Ore. App. LEXIS 3769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-caraher-orctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack