State v. Stubblefield

Under State v. Cook, a warrantless search does not violate a defendant’s rights under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution when that defendant’s words or conduct demonstrate abandonment of the searched property.

Defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. When Defendant crashed a stolen truck after fleeing officers, he fled the scene. An inventory search of the vehicle revealed evidence that led to charges for three counts of robbery. On appeal, Defendant argued the evidence found in the truck should have been suppressed because the warrantless search that revealed it was unconstitutional under Article I, section 9 of Oregon Constitution. Under State v. Cook, 332 Or 601, 608 (2001), a warrantless search does not violate a defendant’s rights under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution when that defendant’s words or conduct demonstrate abandonment of the searched property. Because Defendant voluntarily fled the scene, the Court held his conduct manifested a relinquishment of his constitutionally protected interests in the property, and, therefore, the trial court did not err in admitting the evidence revealed in the warrantless search. Affirmed.