State v. Moulton

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Constitutional Law
  • Date Filed: 10-08-2014
  • Case #: A154456
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Duncan, P.J. for the Court; Wollheim, J; and Lagesen, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

In order to survive a motion to suppress evidence, the State must prove that a police officer’s warrantless search or seizure was constitutionally justified by an exception to the warrant requirement.

Defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained in violation of the Oregon Constitution. Defendant was arrested on a warrant for failure to appear. While arresting defendant, the police officer conducted a pat-down search and found drug paraphernalia, methamphetamine, and various pipes. Defendant was charged and convicted of unlawful possession of methamphetamine after the trial court denied his motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the search and now appeals the denial of that motion. The Court reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court erred in denying the motion because the search was not a valid search incident to arrest and because the state failed to prove the existence of a valid inventory policy. The state conceded error on the part of the trial court. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search