State v. Martinez

“Warrantless searches are per se unreasonable, unless the state establishes the applicability of an exception;” an exception to warrantless searches are “(1) to protect a police officer’s safety; (2) to prevent destruction of evidence; or (3) to discover evidence of the crime of arrest.” State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475, 480, 366 P3d 331 (2015); State v. Delfino, 281 Or App 725, 727, 386 P3d 133 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 525 (2017).

Defendant appealed a conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine and assigned error to the trial court’s denying his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant argued that evidence was obtained “through an unreasonable seizure and search of his person in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.” The Court explained that “[w]arrantless searches are per se unreasonable, unless the state establishes the applicability of an exception;” an exception to warrantless searches are “(1) to protect a police officers safety; (2) to prevent destruction of evidence; or (3) to discover evidence of the crime of arrest.”  The Court found that that the defendant being searched incident to arrest was allowed, however the state did not establish an exception that made the officer permitted to search the evidence—a bag—that was found in defendant’s pocket. The evidence found from the bag being search should be suppressed. Reversed and Remanded.