State v. Colman-Pinning

“[T]he automobile exception is a subcategory of the warrant exception for exigent circumstances, necessitated by the fact that a vehicle that is mobile can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.” State v. Brown, 301 Or 268, 275, 721 P2d 1357 (1986). “The mobility of the vehicle creates a per se exigency, meaning that there is no need to establish other exigencies or that a warrant could not have been quickly obtained.” Id. at 276.

Defendant appealed his conviction after he entered a guilty plea for multiple drug offenses. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence based on a warrantless search of his vehicle. On appeal, Defendant argued the automobile exception was not applicable if officers “create their own exigency” and officers manufactured the situation that allowed them to use this exception. In response, the State argued that the search was permissible under the automobile exception because the vehicle was mobile when it was stopped and there was probable cause to believe it would contain controlled substances because the Defendant was stopped on his way to a police-arranged drug buy. “[T]he automobile exception is a subcategory of the warrant exception for exigent circumstances, necessitated by the fact that a vehicle that is mobile can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought.” State v. Brown, 301 Or 268, 275, 721 P2d 1357 (1986). “The mobility of the vehicle creates a per se exigency, meaning that there is no need to establish other exigencies or that a warrant could not have been quickly obtained.” Id. at 276. The Court found that the police officers were justified in planning the operation and did not have an obligation to seek a warrant. Thus, the Court held that the search was valid under the automobile exception. Affirmed.