State v. Grelinger

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. Grelinger

794 P.2d 446, 102 Or. App. 297, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 608

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedJune 27, 1990

Docket10-88-00634; CA A60181

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 794 P.2d 446 (State v. Grelinger) 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. Grelinger, 794 P.2d 446, 102 Or. App. 297, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 608 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

WARREN, J.

Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(4)(b). He assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during an illegal search of his person. We reverse.

On December 25,1987, police officers went to a home to investigate a domestic dispute. They found defendant in a very intoxicated state and decided to take him into protective civil custody. ORS 426.460(1). Officer Slimak called in defendant’s name for a records check. Next, Officer Putnam patted defendant down. Putnam felt a compact in defendant’s pocket. On the basis of his experience, Putnam knew that compacts frequently are used to hold drugs. He removed the compact, and it smelled of methamphetamine. He opened it and discovered a powdery substance, which was later determined to be methamphetamine. Immediately thereafter, Putnam learned that there was an outstanding warrant for defendant’s arrest for driving while suspended.

When taking a person into protective civil custody, an officer generally may search the person only for weapons. State v. Keyes, 61 Or App 434, 657 P2d 724 (1983). The trial court found that the officer did not reasonably think that the compact was a weapon and, therefore, held that the removal of the compact violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. It also held, however, that suppression was not required, because the evidence inevitably would have been discovered. It reasoned that, once the arrest warrant was discovered, the officer could have searched defendant incident to the arrest, and the discovery of the compact then would have been lawful. Defendant contends, and the state agrees, that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies only to remove the taint of illegality from evidence that is discovered subsequently as a result of the illegal seizure of other evidence, not to primary evidence seized during an unlawful search, as in this case.

The inevitable discovery doctrine provides an exception to the rule that evidence unlawfully obtained must be suppressed. State v. Hacker, 51 Or App 743, 627 P2d 11 (1981). [300]*300ORS 133.683,¹ enacted in 1973, codifies the doctrine as applied to derivative evidence discovered as a result of an unlawful search and seizure.² State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 709 P2d 225 (1985). Recently, we held that the statute prohibits application of the doctrine to primary evidence.³ State v. Schellhorn, 95 Or App 297, 769 P2d 221 (1989). There is some question whether we may have read Miller too broadly. We need not decide that, however, because, even if the doctrine does apply to primary evidence, the trial court erred in concluding that the discovery of the compact would have been lawful if it was the product of a search incident to an arrest under the warrant.

The scope of a search incident to arrest is broader than one involved in a civil hold only to the extent that an officer making an arrest may search for evidence of the crime for which the arrest is made. See State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 729 P2d 524 (1986); State v. Keyes, supra, 61 Or App at 436. An arrest warrant for driving while suspended does not necessarily entitle an officer to search for evidence, especially when the crime has been committed at some indefinite time in the past, as here. See State v. Owens, supra, 302 Or at 200. The officer did not testify that he had reason to think that defendant would possess evidence of the crime of driving while suspended at the time of the arrest. Given the facts of this case, the officer could conduct only a limited pat down. Because the trial court found that the officer could not have thought that the compact was a weapon, its removal was [301]*301unlawful. The trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to suppress.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

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

WARREN, J.

Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance. ORS 475.992(4)(b). He assigns as error the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence found during an illegal search of his person. We reverse.

On December 25,1987, police officers went to a home to investigate a domestic dispute. They found defendant in a very intoxicated state and decided to take him into protective civil custody. ORS 426.460(1). Officer Slimak called in defendant’s name for a records check. Next, Officer Putnam patted defendant down. Putnam felt a compact in defendant’s pocket. On the basis of his experience, Putnam knew that compacts frequently are used to hold drugs. He removed the compact, and it smelled of methamphetamine. He opened it and discovered a powdery substance, which was later determined to be methamphetamine. Immediately thereafter, Putnam learned that there was an outstanding warrant for defendant’s arrest for driving while suspended.

When taking a person into protective civil custody, an officer generally may search the person only for weapons. State v. Keyes, 61 Or App 434, 657 P2d 724 (1983). The trial court found that the officer did not reasonably think that the compact was a weapon and, therefore, held that the removal of the compact violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. It also held, however, that suppression was not required, because the evidence inevitably would have been discovered. It reasoned that, once the arrest warrant was discovered, the officer could have searched defendant incident to the arrest, and the discovery of the compact then would have been lawful. Defendant contends, and the state agrees, that the inevitable discovery doctrine applies only to remove the taint of illegality from evidence that is discovered subsequently as a result of the illegal seizure of other evidence, not to primary evidence seized during an unlawful search, as in this case.

The inevitable discovery doctrine provides an exception to the rule that evidence unlawfully obtained must be suppressed. State v. Hacker, 51 Or App 743, 627 P2d 11 (1981). [300]*300ORS 133.683,¹ enacted in 1973, codifies the doctrine as applied to derivative evidence discovered as a result of an unlawful search and seizure.² State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 709 P2d 225 (1985). Recently, we held that the statute prohibits application of the doctrine to primary evidence.³ State v. Schellhorn, 95 Or App 297, 769 P2d 221 (1989). There is some question whether we may have read Miller too broadly. We need not decide that, however, because, even if the doctrine does apply to primary evidence, the trial court erred in concluding that the discovery of the compact would have been lawful if it was the product of a search incident to an arrest under the warrant.

The scope of a search incident to arrest is broader than one involved in a civil hold only to the extent that an officer making an arrest may search for evidence of the crime for which the arrest is made. See State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 729 P2d 524 (1986); State v. Keyes, supra, 61 Or App at 436. An arrest warrant for driving while suspended does not necessarily entitle an officer to search for evidence, especially when the crime has been committed at some indefinite time in the past, as here. See State v. Owens, supra, 302 Or at 200. The officer did not testify that he had reason to think that defendant would possess evidence of the crime of driving while suspended at the time of the arrest. Given the facts of this case, the officer could conduct only a limited pat down. Because the trial court found that the officer could not have thought that the compact was a weapon, its removal was [301]*301unlawful. The trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to suppress.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

794 P.2d 446, 102 Or. App. 297, 1990 Ore. App. LEXIS 608, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-grelinger-orctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack