State v. Steele

Under the Oregon Constitution Article I, section 9, the inevitable discovery doctrine requires the state to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence acquired in an unlawful search would have been discovered under proper police investigatory procedures. State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 225 (1985). An inventory policy that requires law enforcement to open closed containers is overbroad. State v. Williams, 227 Or App 453, 457 (2009).

Defendant appealed judgment of conviction for possession of methamphetamines under ORS 475.894.  Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence seized following the arrest. The trial court made the determination that the methamphetamine would eventually been discovered under the jail’s booking process and inventory policy.  On appeal, Defendant argued that the inventory policy is unconstitutionally overbroad by allowing of the search of all closed containers, and the policy was improperly promulgated.  In response, the State argued that the evidence would have been found under the doctrine of inevitable discovery upon the defendant’s arrival and search at the jail.  Under the Oregon Constitution Article I, section 9, the inevitable discovery doctrine requires the state to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the evidence acquired in an unlawful search would have been discovered under proper police investigatory procedures.  State v. Miller, 300 Or 203, 225 (1985).  An inventory policy that requires law enforcement to open closed containers is overbroad.  State v. Williams, 227 Or App 453, 457 (2009).  The Court of Appeals found that the inventory search policy is overbroad because it allowed the search of closed containers regardless of if it seemed as though the container had valuables. The Court held that the inevitable discovery doctrine does not apply because the policy is overbroad.  Reversed and remanded.