State v. Duffee

A search incident to arrest conducted for the purpose of discovering evidence of the crime of arrest does not require exigency

The defendant here was charged with unlawful possession of methamphetamine and moved to suppress the evidence by arguing that the officer obtained it unlawfully. She argues that the officer extended the traffic stop by investigating whether the vehicle was stolen and by asking questions about drug possession without reasonable suspicion. She also argues that because there were no exigent circumstances, the search-incident-to-arrest exception did not apply. The trial court denied her motion to suppress. 

On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that the officer’s investigation into whether the vehicle was stolen and questioning the defendant about drugs did not unlawfully extend the stop or burden the arrest. They reasoned that the officer had reasonable suspicion based on multiple factors that the defendant’s vehicle was stolen. Additionally, the court reasoned that the questioning about drugs was permissible because the arrest was independently supported upon confirmation that the truck was stolen. Once the arrest occurred, the officer was lawfully permitted to perform a search incident to arrest where no exigency was required. The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress.