Opinion ID: 1176846
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Time and place of search and seizure.

Text: It was also held by the Court of Appeals that even though such a search may have been reasonable if made at the time and place of defendant's arrest, the search in this case was not reasonable because it was too remote in time and place to be a part of a search incident to arrest. We hold, however, that upon the taking into custody of a person following a legal arrest, such a search of the person arrested as would be reasonable if made by the officer at that time and place may be made by him at any time in the course of transporting the arrested person to jail. The fact that in this case the officer stopped at Estacada to prepare his custody report before proceeding to the jail at Oregon City did not invalidate the search. In our opinion, the search in this case was reasonable in relation to the time and place of the arrest, within the rule as stated in State v. Chinn, supra, 231 Or. at 267, 270-272, 373 P.2d 392. See also United States v. Edwards, supra , and La Fave, Search and Seizure: The Course of the True Law, 1966 Ill.Law Forum 255, 304. In so holding we do not undertake to decide the nature, scope and intensity of the search that may reasonably be made of an arrested person at the time of the booking of such a person for jail, including the extent to which an inventory may be made of the contents of his billfold or wallet or of other articles in his possession and these questions were not presented for decision in Robinson. Cf. State v. Tracy, supra ; State v. Dempster, supra ; State v. McCoy, supra ; State v. Whitewater, supra ; and State v. Keller, supra . See also ORS 133.455 (formerly ORS 142.210). For all of these reasons, we hold that the search of this defendant and the seizure of the drugs found in the course of that search were not unreasonable; that the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the drugs taken from him at that time; that such evidence was properly received during the course of the trial; that defendant was properly convicted, and that the conviction should not have been reversed by the Court of Appeals, but should be reinstated. Reversed and remanded.