State v. Delfino

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 10-19-2016
  • Case #: A155151
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Flynn, J. For the Court; Duncan, P.J., & Lagesen, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

State v. Krause established that when a search incident to arrest is conducted for the purpose of discovering evidence of the crime of arrest, the search comports with Article I, section 9, even if a defendant no longer has control over the area searched, as long as the evidence reasonably could be found in that area and the search is otherwise reasonable in time, scope, and intensity. If the search in this case occurred immediately after the officer developed probable cause for a Defendant’s arrest, and Defendant had exited the van only shortly before that occurred, the search was reasonable in time, scope, and intensity.

Delfino appealed the trial court’s judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine and unlawful delivery of methamphetamine. Specifically, Delfino assigns error to the court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence that officers found during a warrantless search of his car. Delfino argued that the car was not within his control when the officers obtained the evidence, because he was already outside of the car. This Court holds that when a search incident to arrest is conducted for the purpose of discovering evidence of the crime of arrest, “the search will comport with Article I, section 9, even though the defendant no longer has control over the area searched, as long as the evidence reasonably could be found in that area and the search is otherwise reasonable in time, scope, and intensity.” State v. Krause, 281 Or App 143, 145 (2016). Since the search in this case occurred immediately after the officer developed probable cause for Delfino’s arrest, and Delfino had exited the van only shortly before that occurred, the search was reasonable in time, scope, and intensity. Affirmed.

Advanced Search