State v. Powell

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: 11-01-2017
  • Case #: A160450
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Shorr, J. for the Court; Armstrong, P.J.; & Wilson, S.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

A warrantless search is per se invalid, unless it falls into one of the clearly defined warrant requirement exceptions. State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177, 149 P3d 1155 (2006).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm, (ORS 166.250). Defendant assigned error to the trial court denying a motion to suppress evidence found during a warrantless search. On appeal, Defendant argued the record was insufficient to allow a determination that the search was justified under any exception to the warrant requirement. The State agreed the search was warrantless, but asserted the officer’s actions were permissible under the voluntary consent, officer safety, emergency aid, and school safety exceptions to the warrant requirement. A warrantless search is per se invalid, unless it falls into one of the clearly defined warrant requirement exceptions. State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173, 177, 149 P3d 1155 (2006). The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred when it denied the motion to suppress because the warrantless search did not qualify for any of the warrant exceptions proffered by the state. Reversed and remanded. 

Advanced Search