State v. McCrory

734 P.2d 359, 84 Or. App. 390, 1987 Ore. App. LEXIS 3193

• Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
• Decided: March 18, 1987
• Docket: CC 85-405; CA A36092
• Status: Published

Opinions

WARDEN, J.

This case is on remand from the Oregon Supreme Court for reconsideration in the light of State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 729 P2d 524 (1986). In our first opinion, State v. McCrory, 78 Or App 671, 716 P2d 776 (1986), we affirmed a pretrial order suppressing evidence.¹ In the light of Owens, we reverse.

In January, 1985, defendant was arrested for assault by officer Wojack. She was taken to the Coos County Holding Facility where, pursuant to a jail policy, all items in the pockets of her clothing were removed when she was “booked in” by deputy sheriff Wiggins. A small paperfold, commonly described as a “bindle,” was found in her jacket pocket. The deputy gave the paperfold to Wojack, who testified that, on the basis of his training and his experience in the identification of controlled substances, he had reason to believe that it contained narcotics. He opened it and observed a white powder inside. The powder was then tested without first obtaining a search warrant. It was methamphetamine.

Defendant moved to suppress all evidence relating to the paperfold. She argued that the police acted illegally by (1) seizing and opening the paperfold, because the seizure was not incident to her arrest, and (2) testing the paperfold’s contents, because no warrant was obtained. The motion was granted. The state appeals.

As to the initial seizure, defendant does not contest the legality of the inventory procedure whereby the police came into possession of the paperfold. Although a “booking in” inventory does not justify a general exploratory search and analysis of all items found, if in the course of a proper inventory evidence of another crime is discovered, the evidence may be seized upon probable cause to believe that it relates to another crime. See State v. Elk, 249 Or 614, 439 P2d 1011 (1968); State v. Riner, 6 Or App 72, 485 P2d 1234, rev den (1971).

In State v. Owens, supra, 302 Or at 207, the court stated:

“[W]e hold that, when there is probable cause to believe that a lawfully seized transparent container contains a controlled substance, opening the container, removing a modest quantity of its contents and subjecting it to chemical analysis for the sole purpose of confirming that it is a controlled substance, is not a ‘search’ or ‘seizure’ under the Oregon Constitution. * * * Article I, section 9, does not require that the police obtain a warrant before opening the transparent vial and clear plastic package lawfully seized from defendant’s purse herein or testing their contents for the limited purpose of confirming the police officer’s reasonable belief that they contained controlled substances.”

Although Owens concerned a transparent container, its holding extends to those containers which otherwise “announce their contents.” In State v. Herbert, 302 Or 237, 729 P2d 547 (1986), the Supreme Court expressly declined to decide whether the unique packaging of a paperfold alone might provide, to an officer with training and experience in the area of drug detection, probable cause to believe it contains a controlled substance.

“[W]e are not here required to decide whether an opaque paperfold is such a unique container of illicit drugs. In addition to the shape of the container, other facts gave the officer probable cause to believe that the paperfold contained a controlled substance.” 302 Or at 242.

In this case, however, we must decide that issue, because there were no other facts to support a finding of probable cause.²

Wojack testified that the paperfold was made of a page torn from a magazine that was “folded up in a triangle-type of shape. It is folded so that it can’t come open unless you pull it apart.” In State v. Herbert, supra, the court similarly described a paperfold:

“The paperfold * * * was made from a page torn out of a magazine. The edges were folded in so that the contents would not fall out.” 302 Or at 237 n 1.

The trial court in this case determined that Wojack and Wiggins had probable cause to believe the defendant was in possession of a controlled substance:

“Unlike the container in State v. Lowry, 295 Or 337, 346, 667 P2d 996 (1983), a paper ‘bindle’ would not be used for ‘baby powder, or table salt or legitimate medicines,’ although an inventive mind could claim defendant was merely in possession of a ‘spit-wad’.”³

Defendant argues, as did the defendant in Herbert, that a paperfold could just as well have been used to store or transport small items, such as unsnelled fish hooks, jewelry or radish seeds. We agree that that is “possible.” Probable cause, however, does not require absolute certainty. State v. Collicott, 56 Or App 605, 642 P2d 1187, rev den 293 Or 190 (1982). Wojack’s training and experience was sufficient to allow him to form a reasonable belief that the paperfold contained a controlled substance. Its seizure, therefore, was lawful, as was the subsequent opening and testing of its contents. State v. Owens, supra.

Reversed.

1 We cited State v. Westlund, 75 Or App 43, 705 P2d 208 (1985), which has since been affirmed in part and reversed in part. 302 Or 225, 729 P2d 541 (1986).

2 Wojack testified that he was told about and had then seen needle marks on defendant’s arm. However, that was not until after the paperfold had been opened. Wiggins testified that defendant appeared to be experiencing severe mood swings and to be under the influence of something, but Wiggins attributed them to ingestion of alcohol.

3 The court defined the term:

“Spit-wad is the name of small, tightly folded pieces of paper moistened in the mouth and used by small boys as a projectile to be shot from a rubber band at other small boys, small girls, and teachers.”