State v. ROTTENKOLBER

Court of Appeals of Oregon

State v. ROTTENKOLBER

190 P.3d 494, 221 Or. App. 503, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1104

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedAugust 6, 2008

DocketCM0620334; A132728

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 P.3d 494 (State v. ROTTENKOLBER) 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. ROTTENKOLBER, 190 P.3d 494, 221 Or. App. 503, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1104 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

*504 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for felon in possession of a restricted weapon. ORS 166.270(2). He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in his backpack following his arrest pursuant to an inventory policy that required police to inventory all property removed from a person before the person’s belongings may be placed in secure storage at the police station. He contends that the inventory policy was unlawful in that it authorized police to search all closed containers, not just those designed for, or likely to hold, valuables. The state concedes that the policy is unlawful and that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress on that ground. We agree with defendant and accept the state’s concession. State v. Eldridge, 207 Or App 337, 341, 142 P3d 82 (2006) (inventory policy may not require search of all containers in an impounded vehicle regardless of whether the container is normally associated with holding valuables).

Reversed and remanded.

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

*504 PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for felon in possession of a restricted weapon. ORS 166.270(2). He assigns error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence found in his backpack following his arrest pursuant to an inventory policy that required police to inventory all property removed from a person before the person’s belongings may be placed in secure storage at the police station. He contends that the inventory policy was unlawful in that it authorized police to search all closed containers, not just those designed for, or likely to hold, valuables. The state concedes that the policy is unlawful and that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress on that ground. We agree with defendant and accept the state’s concession. State v. Eldridge, 207 Or App 337, 341, 142 P3d 82 (2006) (inventory policy may not require search of all containers in an impounded vehicle regardless of whether the container is normally associated with holding valuables).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 P.3d 494, 221 Or. App. 503, 2008 Ore. App. LEXIS 1104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rottenkolber-orctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack