State v. Wilcox

In determining whether officers seized defendant’s backpack, the court looked to case law and determined it “clearly indicate[s] that a ‘seizure’ of property occurs when police physically remove property from a person’s possession.” State v. Juarez-Godinez, 942 P2d 722 (1997).

Defendant appealed his conviction for two counts of felon in possession of a restricted weapon. The incident occurred when hospital security reported that Defendant refused medical treatment and was about to be discharged, leading to Defendant's custody for transport to a detox facility. Officers conducted an inventory search of Defendant's backpack, found a butterfly knife, discovered a previous felony conviction, and arrested Defendant. The court denied Defendant's motion to suppress, and at trial, he was found guilty on both counts.  Defendant assigned error to the denial his motion to suppress and argued that his detention became an unlawful arrest without probable cause. Additionally, he contended that the warrantless seizure of his backpack and the subsequent inventory search were both in violation of the Oregon Constitution.  The State countered by arguing that the temporary removal of Defendant's backpack constituted a minimal interference with his ownership interest, and therefore did not amount to a seizure.  In determining whether officers seized Defendant’s backpack, the Court looked to case law and determined it “clearly indicate[s] that a ‘seizure’ of property occurs when police physically remove property from a person’s possession.” State v. Juarez-Godinez, 942 P2d 722 (1997).  The Court reasoned significant interference, even a temporary one, with a person’s possessory or ownership interest in the property does not alter that a seizure occurred.  Reversed and remanded.