State v. Gibson

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 01-07-2015
  • Case #: A153581
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Ortega, P.J.; Garrett, J.; & Edmonds, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Probable cause has two aspects: the officer must subjectively believe that a crime has been committed, and that belief must be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The facts that determine whether there is objective probable cause are the facts known by the arresting officer at the time of the arrest.

Defendant was convicted of two counts of unauthorized use of a vehicle (UUV), one count of identity theft, and one count of possession of methamphetamine. On appeal, Defendant argued that the police did not have probable cause to believe that Defendant knew that the vehicles at issue were stolen. Defendant argued that because both of her arrests were unlawful, all the evidence that was discovered during the subsequent searches incident to arrest (which formed the basis for her convictions on the methamphetamine and identity theft charges, as well as the UUV charges) should have been suppressed. Defendant was arrested twice and argued that on both occasions police lacked probable cause to arrest her, and the resulting searches were consequently unlawful. Probable cause has two aspects: the officer must subjectively believe that a crime has been committed, and that belief must be objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. The facts that determine whether there is objective probable cause are the facts known by the arresting officer at the time of the arrest. The Court concluded that the police in both instances had probable cause to arrest Defendant for the crime of UUV, and the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress. Affirmed.

Advanced Search