State v. Winn

“In determining whether a particular search falls within the scope of a defendant’s consent, the trial court will determine, based on the totality of circumstances, what the defendant actually intended.” State v. Blair, 361 Or. 527, 537 (2017).

The State appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeals which reversed the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. On appeal to the Supreme Court, State assigned error to the Court of Appeals determination that the search of Defendant’s compact inside her purse was outside the scope of her consent to search the purse. The State argued that “the scope of a person’s consent should be determined by what a reasonable person would understand in light of the totality of the circumstances.” “In determining whether a particular search falls within the scope of a defendant’s consent, the trial court will determine, based on the totality of circumstances, what the defendant actually intended.” State v. Blair, 361 Or. 527, 537 (2017). The Oregon Supreme Court held the evidence in the record could support opposing inferences that Defendant’s unqualified expression of assent to the request to search her purse was unambiguous with respect to the scope of her consent. Reversed.