State v. Edwards

A lawful arrest does not, in and of itself, allow for the lawful exploratory seizure of all personal property on the arrestee’s person. The fact of arrest authorizes the seizure of limited categories of personal effects related to the probable cause for the arrest and even more limited categories of unrelated effects.

Defendant appealed a conviction of one count of possession of methamphetamine. During Defendant’s arrest on an outstanding warrant, officers found methamphetamine in her backpack after removing it from her possession and conducting a warrantless search. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search and argued that any evidence they discovered in the search must be suppressed. In response, the State argued that Defendant’s arrest, standing alone, allowed for the seizure of her backpack, which was lawfully in the officers’ possession at the time it was searched pursuant to the county inventory exception to the warrant requirement, which requires the inventory of belongings of a person who is in custody and being transported to jail. The Court rejected the State’s argument and explained that the State was required to establish that any seizure was supported by an independent constitutional justification. For the purposes of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, the inventory exception can authorize a warrantless search but not a warrantless seizure because “the mere arrest and custody, divorced from the reasons for the arrest, do not subject a person and his belongings to unlimited inquisitorial powers that would not apply if he were not arrested.” The Court held that the State failed to meet its burden of showing that the seizure fell within one of the established, delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement. Therefore, the trial court erred when it denied Defendant’s motion to suppress and that error was not harmless. Reversed and remanded.