State v. Stinstrom

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 02-20-2014
  • Case #: A147484
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, P.J. for the court; Wollheim, J.; and Schuman; S. J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Administrative seizures are not subject to the inventory exception if the item is not already lawfully possessed by the officer.

Defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Defendant argued that the seizure and subsequent search of his backpack was unconstitutional under both state and federal constitutions. First, the Court held that the backpack was illegally seized and was not subject to an inventory exception, as the item must first be legally seized before it is inventoried. Second, the Court concluded that the backpack was neither temporarily or permanently abandoned property because Defendant claimed ownership shortly after being apprehended and attempted to pick it up. Therefore, the seizure of the backpack “was not specifically authorized by law, as administrative seizures must be.” Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search