State v. Sevits

“[B]efore conducting an inventory of a vehicle in a noncriminal and nonemergency context … police must give occupants who are present and not under arrest notice that they may retrieve readily removable personal belongings before an inventory is conducted.” State v. Fulmer, 366 OR 224, 460 P3d 486 (2020).

The State appealed an order granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence discovered during an inventory of defendant’s car. Two detectives initiated a traffic stop after observing defendant make several traffic violations. Defendant refused to consent to a search of his car, detectives arranged for it to be towed due to defendant’s suspended licenses and lack of proof of insurance. Detectives began an inventory of the car and asked defendant if there was anything he wished to remove from the car after they had already begun the inventory. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress all evidence found in the car because the detectives violated Article I, section 9 of the Oregon constitution. The State assigns error to the trial court’s reliance on State v. Fulmer, 366 OR 224, 460 P3d 486 (2020) and argued the detectives compiled with Fulmer because they asked defendant if he wanted to remove any items approximately 40 seconds after beginning the inventory. “[B]efore conducting an inventory of a vehicle in a noncriminal and nonemergency context … police must give occupants who are present and not under arrest notice that they may retrieve readily removable personal belongings before an inventory is conducted.” Fulmar 366 Or at 234-35. The Court determined that the defendant was present and not under arrest, and police conceded they began the inventory before asking if he wanted to remove any items from the car. The Court concluded that because the detectives failed to provide the constitutionally required notice before conducting the inventory, they violated Article I, section 9 and the trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence. Affirmed.