State v. Senin

A warrantless search for the purpose of discovering evidence of the crime of arrest "may be justified even if the defendant has been removed from the area in which an officer believes that evidence may be located" so long as the "evidence reasonably could be found in that area and the search is otherwise reasonable in time, scope, and intensity." State v. Krause, 281 Or App 143, 146 (2016)

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for possession of heroin under ORS 475.854. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant argues the evidence was obtained in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution via (1) an unlawfully extended traffic stop, and (2) an illegally conducted search of his car.  “A warrantless search for the purpose of discovering evidence of the crime of arrest ‘may be justified even if the defendant has been removed from the area in which an officer believes that evidence bay be located’ so long as the ‘evidence reasonably could be found in that area and the search is otherwise reasonable in time, scope, and intensity.’” State v. Krause, 281 Or App 143, 146 (2016). The Court held that the officer’s order for Defendant to get back into his car was reasonably related to the traffic stop and did not constitute an unlawful extension. The Court held that the officer’s search of Defendant's car was proper and supported by probable cause. Further, because the search was incident to Defendant's arrest and conducted to discover evidence of the crime of arrest the search fell into an exception to the warrant requirement. Affirmed.