State v. Cross

“The defendant’s intent with respect to the scope of consent is unambiguously expressed, that manifestation of intent is controlling.” Id. at 539; see also State v. Winn, 361 Or 636, 643, 396 P3d 926 (2017).

While talking to the police, Defendant consented to a bag search in which the police found an open container of alcohol. Defendant appealed a judgement of conviction for four felony drug offenses. She assigned error to the Court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence found within her bag. On appeal, Defendant argued that the officer exceeded the scope of her consent because her “unambiguous intent was to limit her consent to a search of the purse.” The Court rejected this argument because defendant’s expression of consent “g[ives] rise to competing inferences with respect to the scope of [that] consent”; consequently, her intent is not, as she contends, unambiguously manifest.” The Court stated that after considering the totality of the circumstances, “the defendant’s intent with respect to the scope of consent is unambiguously expressed, that manifestation of intent is controlling.” Id. at 539; see also State v. Winn, 361 Or 636, 643, 396 P3d 926 (2017). Therefore, the Court concluded that the officer did not exceed the scope of the consent granted. Affirmed.