Case Name: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Amanda MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 2019-07-31
Citations: 444 P.3d 1148
Docket Number: A167353
Parties: STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Amanda MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before Hadlock, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 3d
Volume: 444
Pages: 1148–1149

Head Matter:
STATE of Oregon, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Amanda MENDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
A167353
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Submitted June 6, 2019.
July 31, 2019
Ernest G. Lannet, Chief Defender, Criminal Appellate Section, and Nora Coon, Deputy Public Defender, Office of Public Defense Services, filed the brief for appellant.
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, Benjamin Gutman, Solicitor General, and Philip Thoennes, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.
Before Hadlock, Presiding Judge, and DeHoog, Judge, and Mooney, Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM
Defendant appeals a judgment of conviction for unlawful possession of methamphetamine, ORS 475.894, entered after a conditional guilty plea. She assigns error to the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence discovered in the course of a warrantless search that, according to defendant, was not justified by an exception to the warrant requirement and violated Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution. The evidence that defendant sought to suppress was found during a search of her person and purse that happened at the county courthouse pursuant to an inventory policy that applies to arrestees and inmates. Defendant argues that she was neither an "arrestee" nor an "inmate" for purpose of the inventory policy. The state concedes the error. We agree that, under the circumstances presented here, the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress; we accept the state's concession and reverse and remand.
Reversed and remanded.