State v. Wilcox

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 10-30-2024
  • Case #: A175891
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Landu, S.J. for the court; Ortega, P.J., and Hellman, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

The evaluation of the lawfulness of a search and seizure of a defendant’s backpack while being transported to a detox facility must be done under administrative principles rather than criminal.

Defendant appealed a charge of two counts of felon in possession of a restricted weapon under ORS 166.270(2) after his backpack was searched as he was transported to a detox facility. Defendant claimed the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. This Court vacated the trial court’s denial. The Oregon Supreme Court then vacated and remanded this Court’s decision, stating that evaluation of the lawfulness of the seizure must be done under administrative search and seizure principles rather than criminal. On remand, Defendant first argued that ORS 430.399 only granted the authority to seize himself, not his property. The Court determined that the backpack was in Defendant’s possession and WCCO 9.12.040 gave the necessary authority to seize it.  Defendant additionally argued that the search of his backpack was unlawful. The Court determined that WCCO 9.12.040 allowed officers to “open closed containers that are either designed to hold valuables or are likely to contain them.” State v. Salkoski, 299 Or App 180, 183-84, 448 P3d 718 (2019). This is done to “protect personal property and prevent claims against the police.” State v. Mundt/Fincher, 98 Or App 407, 412, 780 P2d 234, rev den, 308 Or 660 (1989). Defendant further argued that Salkoski and Mundt/Fincher were incorrectly decided. The Court determined that they were bound by the set precedent of these cases and that Defendant’s argument was better suited for the Supreme Court. AFFIRMED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top