State v. Marino

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 11-27-2013
  • Case #: A148433
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, J. for the Court; Schuman, P.J.; and Wolheim, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A second search cannot be based on consent obtained for the first search when a reasonable person would perceive that the first consent search had terminated.

Defendant appealed her conviction of unlawful possession of methamphetamine. Defendant asserted that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress evidence obtained when her car was searched without a warrant. Defendant was pulled over for driving with an expired registration. An officer asked Defendant if she would consent to a search of the car and Defendant agreed. When the officer began searching the backseat of the car Defendant told the officer that she did not want him looking through that area and so he stopped the search. After giving Defendant a citation and telling her that she was free to leave, another officer at the scene asked Defendant if he could search her car and Defendant agreed. The second search produced a small baggie of methamphetamine. Following the holding from State v. Arroyo-Sotelo, the Court held that, during a routine traffic stop, “where a reasonable person would perceive that a consent search has terminated, the suspect’s consent to that search cannot be used to support a later search”. Based on this analysis, the Court held that Defendant’s earlier consent to a search did not authorize the warrantless search of her car because the earlier consent expired when the first officer terminated his search. Reversed and Remanded.

Advanced Search