State v. Kumenaker

Under Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution, as interpreted in State v. Atkinson, an inventory policy is constitutional if it is “conducted pursuant to a properly authorized administrative program, designed and systematically administered so that the inventory involves no exercise of discretion by the law enforcement person directing or taking the inventory. 298 Or 1, 10, 688 P2d 832 (1984).

Defendant was charged with felon in possession of a firearm and moved to suppress evidence discovered during the search of his vehicle. Defendant argued that the inventory was not valid because “the policy and its implementation impermissibly allowed officer discretion in how to conduct the inventory.” The trial court granted Defendant’s motion. The State appealed and argued that the trial court misapplied Atkinson and that the inventory was valid. Atkinson sets three requirements for a valid inventory: “(1) the vehicle is lawfully in police custody, (2) the inventory policy is properly authorized and designed and systematically administered so that the inventory involves no discretion by the police, and (3) the officer directing or taking the inventory does not deviate from the established policies or procedures.” State v. Fulmer, 366 Or 224, 231, 460 P3d 486 (2020). The State asserted that the “‘systematically administered’ portion of the Atkinson test requires only that the inventory policy be applied to all inventories.” In response, Defendant contended that the “systematically administered” requirement applies both to the design of the policy and how it is administered in practice. The Court agreed with Defendant and found that officers administering the inventory policy by exercising discretion “based on the circumstances of the individual case, and not based on the standardized procedures of the inventory policy” is “a failure to systematically administer the inventory policy in the manner required by Atkinson for the policy to be constitutionally valid.” Thus, the Court held that the trial court did not err in its application of Atkinson. Affirmed.