State v. Delaney
This text of 197 P.3d 621 (State v. Delaney) 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.
Opinion
Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.894, and appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence found when his jacket was searched. The state concedes that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. As explained below, we conclude that the state’s concession is well taken. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
Defendant was the driver of a vehicle that was lawfully stopped for several traffic infractions. The officer who made the stop determined that the vehicle needed to be impounded. While inventorying the contents of the vehicle, the officer found defendant’s jacket, searched it, and located drug-related materials in a pocket.
The parties agree that the search of the jacket was not authorized by any inventory policy, and that the circumstances presented no “officer safety” concern that justified searching the jacket. Under the circumstances of this case, we agree that the search of defendant’s j acket violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.
Reversed and remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
197 P.3d 621, 224 Or. App. 463, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-delaney-orctapp-2008.