State v. McCall

A warrantless arrest requires the arresting officer to have “probable cause to believe that the person committed” a crime. State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 211, 729 P2d 524 (1986). A warrantless arrest for UUV requires an officer to have an objective basis to believe a suspect, knowing the vehicle was stolen, “exercise[d] control over or otherwise used the vehicle.” 164.135(1); see State v. Gibson, 268 Or App 428, 433, 342 P3d 168 (2015). A warrantless arrest for PSV requires an officer to have an objective basis to believe a suspect was in possession of a vehicle when the suspect had “reason to believe” the vehicle was stolen. ORS 819.300; State v. Noe, 242 Or App 530, 532, 256 P3d 166 (2011).

Defendant appealed convictions for unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV) and possession of a stolen vehicle (PSV).  Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s refusal to suppress evidence produced from his warrantless arrest.  On appeal, Defendant argued that the arresting officers lacked probable cause to make the arrest.  In response, the State argued that the officers had sufficient probable cause.  A warrantless arrest requires the arresting officer to have “probable cause to believe that the person committed” a crime.  State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 211, 729 P2d 524 (1986).  A warrantless arrest for UUV requires an officer to have an objective basis to believe a suspect, knowing the vehicle was stolen, “exercise[d] control over or otherwise used the vehicle.”  164.135(1); see State v. Gibson, 268 Or App 428, 433, 342 P3d 168 (2015).  A warrantless arrest for PSV requires an officer to have an objective basis to believe a suspect was in possession of a vehicle when the suspect had “reason to believe” the vehicle was stolen.  ORS 819.300; State v. Noe, 242 Or App 530, 532, 256 P3d 166 (2011).  The Court held that the officers had sufficient probable cause to arrest Defendant because (1) the officers knew “that the vehicle had been stolen,” (2) Defendant was standing “within the open driver’s side door,” and (3) Defendant was working on the inside of the door with pliers.  Affirmed.