- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
- Date Filed: 05-25-2016
- Case #: A154313
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Sercombe, P.J. for the Court; Hadlock, C.J.; & Tookey, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed her conviction for possession of methamphetamine, assigning error to the trial court’s denial of her motion to suppress evidence found inside a makeup compact in her purse. She argued that she only consented to a search of her purse and not of containers within her purse. The State argued that Defendant’s consent was broad enough to include a search of closed containers inside the purse. “The scope of consent is determined based upon what a typical, reasonable person would have understood by the exchange between the officer and the [defendant] . . . in light of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the grant of consent in a particular case.” State v. Delong, 275 Or. App. 295, 301 (2015). The Court held that the scope of Defendant’s consent to search was not sufficiently broad to justify a search of a small, closed container inside. Therefore, the Court held that the search of the closed container was unreasonable under Article I, section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, and the trial court should have suppressed evidence found inside the closed container. Reversed and remanded.