State v. Walls

In order for officers to seize property under Article I, section 9, a “police officer must obtain a warrant that is supported by probable cause unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies,” such as exigent circumstances. State v. Kosta, 304 Or 549, 553, 748 P2d 72 (1987). State v. Stevens, 311 Or 119, 126, 806 P2d 92 (1991).

Defendant appealed conviction of unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence. On appeal, Defendant argued that her rights were violated under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, because the officer lacked probable cause and unlawfully seized and searched her purse because it was conducted before the officer obtained a search warrant. In response, the State argued that the officer's experience and training determined that the closed containers in the car contained contraband, thus giving the officer probable cause and that Defendant could have walked away with the purse that contained illegal contraband, which created exigent circumstances that justified seizing Defendant's purse until a warrant was obtained. Under Article I, section 9, a "police officer must obtain a warrant that is supported by probable cause unless an exception to the warrant requirement applies," such as exigent circumstances. State v. Kosta, 304 Or 549, 553, 748 P2d 72 (1987). "An exigent circumstance is a situation that requires police to act swiftly to prevent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall a suspect's escape or destruction of evidence. State v. Stevens, 311 Or 119, 126, 806 P2d 92 (1991). The Court of Appeals held that the purse was lawfully seized under the exigency exception because the officer had probable cause to seize the car and containers inside of it. Affirmed.