State v. Montiel-Delvalle

To determine whether a defendant manifested an intention to relinquish a constitutionally protected interest in property, courts will consider six factors set in State v. Ipsen, 288 Or App 395, 406 P3d 105 (2017). To defeat a motion to suppress, a defendant’s relinquishment of constitutionally protected rights in property need not be permanent.

Defendant was convicted of failure to perform the duties of a driver to injured persons and failure to perform the duties of a driver when property is damaged. On appeal, Defendant challenged the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence derived from a warrantless search of his car at the accident scene as a violation of his rights under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. A defendant in possession of property immediately before it is searched has constitutionally protected interests in that property but abandons his interests by “voluntarily manifesting an intention to relinquish them, in which case a warrantless search of the property does not violate his rights.” State v. Cook, 332 Or 601, 607, 34 P3d 156 (2001). The Court, relying on the six factors discussed in State v. Ipsen, 288 Or App 395, 406 P3d 105 (2017), concluded that Defendant abandoned any constitutionally protected interest in the car when he left it at the accident scene and, consequently, could not challenge the search. Therefore, the Court held that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. Affirmed.