- Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
- Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
- Date Filed: 12-28-2017
- Case #: A158224
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Hadlock, C.J. for the Court; Tookey, P.J.; & DeHoog, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction for multiple drug-related crimes, and the court's order requiring forfeiture of the proceeds from these crimes per ORS 131.582. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence found during a search of an automobile trunk. On appeal, Defendant argued that the automobile exception to the warrant requirement was inapplicable because the automobile wasn't mobile when the officers first encountered it in connection to a crime. The automobile exception under Article 1 section 9 of the Oregon Constitution applies if the automobile is mobile when officers initially encounter the automobile in connection with a crime and the officers have "probable cause to believe that the car contains evidence of a crime." State v. Andersen, 361 Or 187, 189 (2017). The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err because the automobile was mobile when the police officers first encountered it in connection to the warrant they sought to execute even though probable cause to search the trunk developed after car was no longer mobile. Affirmed.