State v. Balabon

"Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, warrantless seizures are per se unreasonable unless they fall within 'one of the few "specifically established and well-delineated exceptions" to the warrant requirement.'"

Defendant appealed a "judgment of conviction for delivery and possession of methamphetamine."  Defendant assigned error to the "trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence that police officers obtained from an inventory of her impounded vehicle."  Defendant argued that the officers did not have the authority to impound her vehicle.  The State argued that the police were authorized to impound the vehicle because it was impeding traffic and they could lawfully prohibit Defendant from driving the vehicle because Officers believed Defendant was driving uninsured.  "Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, warrantless seizures are per se unreasonable unless they fall within 'one of the few "specifically established and well-delineated exceptions" to the warrant requirement.'"  The Court held that the officers could not have lawfully seized Defendant's vehicle because the State cannot execute an administrative seizure on a driver that is driving uninsured unless the citation was based on probable cause. The Officer did not have probable cause to lead to the conclusion that the driver was driving without insurance. Therefore the resulting inventory of the car violated Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution.  Reversed and remanded.