State v. Ramirez

In order to overcome a warrantless search on the officer safety exception, the state must prove that an officer’s subjective safety threats are objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. State v. Hendricks, 213 Or. App. 360, 364, 160 P.3d 1014, rev den, 343 Or. 467 (2007).

Defendant appealed several convictions for which he entered a conditional guilty plea. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress that was filed and argued there was no safety exception to the warrant requirement of the Oregon Constitution, which means the knife found on Defendant was not discoverable. The State argued that because it was objectively reasonable to believe there were safety concerns, the handcuffing of Defendant that led to the knife being discovered was lawful. The State must prove that an officer’s subjective safety threats are objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. State v. Hendricks, 213 Or. App. 360, 364, 160 P.3d 1014, rev den, 343 Or. 467 (2007). The Court held that the State did not meet their burden and that the trial court was wrong to deny that section of Defendant’s motion to suppress. Because Defendant was non-threatening and cooperative, the totality of the circumstances showed there was no reason for the police officer to search Defendant for safety concerns regarding the knife. Reversed and remanded.