Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Campbell

Court of Appeals of Oregon

December 28, 2017

STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
KYLE DOMINIC LOYD CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.

          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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.