and submitted January 7, 2019
County Circuit Court 16CR74403; Richard L. Barron, Senior
Matthew Blythe, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for
on the brief was Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal
Appellate Section, Office of Public Defense Services.
Christopher A. Perdue, Assistant Attorney General, argued the
cause for respondent.
on the brief were Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, and
Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General.
Lagesen, Presiding Judge, and DeVore, Judge, and James,
Or.App. 657] PER CURIAM.
appeals from his conviction of unlawful possession of
methamphetamine, ORS 475.894, assigning error to the trial
court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence
resulting from the inventory of a small camera case. On
appeal, defendant argues that the camera case was not a
container "designed" to hold valuables, but was
rather designed to hold a camera and that a camera does not
constitute a "valuable" when read in the context of
the policy, in particular the following section:
"This policy provides guidance regarding searches of
individuals in custody. Such searches are necessary to
eliminate the introduction of contraband, intoxicants or
weapons into the North Bend Police Department facility."
state responds that our decision in State v.
Cleland, 289 Or. App 379, 382, 410 P.3d 386 (2017),
rev den, 362 Or. 699 (2018), supports the trial
court's conclusion that the inventory in this case was
lawful. The state argues that "an item is a valuable
depending on how the governing inventory policy describes the
types of valuables that containers might be designed to
carry" and points to another section of the policy that
"Closed Container Searches. Closed containers will not
be opened for inventory purposes except for the following,
which shall be opened for inventory: wallets, purses, coin
purses, fanny packs, personal organizers, briefcase or other
closed containers designed for carrying money or small
valuables, or closed containers which are designed for
"Other closed containers shall be opened and inventoried
if the owner acknowledges they contain cash in excess of $10,
valuables or a hazardous material."
state argues that the policy used "the same kinds of
examples of valuables-wallets, purses, briefcases-as the
policy at issue in Cleland. And, as in
Cleland, those examples suggest a case for carrying