Case Name: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KABLE LEVI JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2015-12-30
Citations: 275 Or. App. 1026
Docket Number: 12CR2546FE; A156414
Parties: STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KABLE LEVI JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and Allen, Judge pro tempore.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 275
Pages: 1026–1027

Head Matter:
Submitted November 17,
reversed and remanded December 30, 2015
STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KABLE LEVI JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
Douglas County Circuit Court
12CR2546FE; A156414
365 P3d 696
Peter Gartlan, Chief Defender, and Emily P. Seltzer, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Anna M. Joyce, Solicitor General, and David B. Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Armstrong, Presiding Judge, and Hadlock, Judge, and Allen, Judge pro tempore.
PER CURIAM

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for one count of unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the methamphetamine, which the police discovered and seized, during a traffic stop, in a warrantless search of a cigarette pack belonging to defendant. The state concedes that the trial court erred "because, contrary to the trial court's conclusions, neither the warrantless search of defendant's pockets (which revealed the cigarette pack) nor the subsequent warrantless search of the cigarette pack was justified under any exception to the warrant requirement" of Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. We agree with the state that the record does not support the trial court's finding that defendant consented to the search of the cigarette pack; we also agree that the evidence therefore should have been suppressed. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
Reversed and remanded.
Article I, section 9, provides, in part:
"No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure!.]"