Argued
and submitted May 31, 2016.
Washington
County Circuit Court C141525CR; Suzanne Upton, Judge.
Kyle
Krohn, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for
appellant. With him on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief
Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, Office of Public
Defense Services.
Leigh
A. Salmon, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for
respondent. With her on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum,
Attorney General, and Paul L. Smith, Deputy Solicitor
General.
Before
Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Chief Judge, and
DeHoog, Judge. [*]
[289
Or.App. 443] Case Summary:
Defendant
appeals a judgment convicting him of unlawful delivery of
heroin, ORS 475.850; unlawful possession of heroin, ORS
475.854; and unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS
475.894; as well as ordering the forfeiture of the proceeds
of those crimes under ORS 131.582, assigning error to the
trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence
that a police officer found while searching the trunk of his
car. On appeal, defendant does not dispute that the officer
had probable cause to believe that evidence of criminal
activity could be found in the trunk. Nevertheless, he
contends that the officer violated Article I, section 9, of
the Oregon Constitution by searching the trunk without a
warrant because his car was not mobile when police
encountered it in connection with a crime, making the
automobile exception to the warrant requirement inapplicable.
Held:
The
trial court did not err. The automobile exception applies in
this case because defendant's car was mobile when
officers encountered it in connection with defendant's
felony arrest warrant and, during the lawful stop for
execution of that warrant, officers developed probable cause
to search the trunk of the car.
Affirmed.
[289
Or.App. 444] HADLOCK, C. J.
Defendant
appeals a judgment convicting him of unlawful delivery of
heroin, ORS 475.850; unlawful possession of heroin, ORS
475.854; and unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS
475.894; as well as ordering the forfeiture of the proceeds
of those crimes under ORS 131.582. He assigns error to the
trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence
that a police officer found while searching the trunk of his
car. Defendant does not dispute that the officer had probable
cause to believe that evidence of criminal activity could be
found in the trunk. Nevertheless, he contends that the
officer violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon
Constitution by searching the trunk without a warrant because
his car was not mobile when police encountered it in
connection with a crime, making the automobile exception to
the warrant requirement inapplicable. We disagree and,
accordingly, affirm.[1]
We
review the denial of a suppression motion for legal error and
are bound by the trial court's findings of historical
facts, both implicit and explicit, if the record includes
constitutionally sufficient evidence to support those
findings. State v. Walker. 277 Or.App. 397, 398, 372
P.3d 540, rev den, 360 Or. 423 (2016). We state the
facts below according to that standard.
At a
time when defendant was the subject of a felony arrest
warrant, police received an informant's tip that
defendant was driving in a specific area of Hillsboro,
Oregon. Sergeant White observed the vehicle matching the
description given by the informant and confirmed that
defendant was the driver. Two other people also were in the
car. White followed the car and was joined in the pursuit by
Officer Slade. White told Slade that they had probable cause
to stop defendant's car because it was being driven by a
person with a felony warrant. Slade then pulled behind
defendant and turned on his overhead lights. Defendant did
not immediately pull over, continuing to drive for about a
quarter of a [289 Or.App. 445] mile before he stopped.
Although defendant refused to comply with commands to get out
of his car, the officers eventually extricated defendant from
the ...