Opinion ID: 1227976
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Confirmatory Chemical Testing.

Text: The question which is squarely before this court for the first time in this case is whether the opening of a transparent container or the testing of its contents is a search or seizure under the Oregon Constitution, when there is probable cause to believe that it contains a controlled substance. If the intrusions are searches or seizures, they require probable cause and a search warrant or separate justification under one of the few, carefully circumscribed exceptions to the warrant requirement. Not all government intrusions, however, trigger Article I, section 9, protections. Article I, section 9, protects privacy and possessory interests. A search occurs when a person's privacy interests are invaded. When the police lawfully seize a container, they can thoroughly examine the container's exterior without violating any privacy interest of the owner or the person from whom the container was seized. For example, the police can observe, feel, smell, shake and weigh it. Furthermore, not all containers found by the police during a search merit the same protection under Article I, section 9. Some containers, those that by their very nature announce their contents (such as by touch or smell) do not support a cognizable privacy interest under Article I, section 9. Transparent containers (such as clear plastic baggies or pill bottles) announce their contents. The contents of transparent containers are visible virtually to the same extent as if the contents had been discovered in plain view, outside the confines of any container. Applying the doctrine of plain view to transparent containers, we hold that no cognizable privacy interest inheres in their contents, and thus that transparent containers can be opened and their contents seized. No warrant is required for the opening and seizure of the contents of transparent containers or containers that otherwise announce their contents. Under the Oregon Constitution, a lawful seizure of a transparent container is a lawful seizure of its contents. When there is probable cause to believe that a lawfully seized substance is a controlled substance, a chemical test, for the sole purpose of determining whether or not it is a controlled substance, is neither a search nor a seizure under Article I, section 9. It is not a search if the purpose of the test of a lawfully seized item is to confirm the presence of whatever the police have probable cause to believe is present in that item. A test for such a limited purpose does not infringe any privacy interest protected by the Oregon Constitution. [4] Likewise, a test for this limited purpose is not a seizure. A seizure occurs when there is a significant interference with a person's possessory or ownership interests in property. The seizure of an article by the police and the retention of it (even temporarily) is a significant intrusion into a person's possessory interest in that effect. However, once the item has been lawfully seized, the person's possessory interest in that property has been substantially reduced. The additional retention of the item, for the limited purpose of chemical analysis or testing, is not a substantial interference with that possessory interest. While it is true that the testing of the item may change a temporary interference with a small amount of the substance into a permanent deprivation, the amount destroyed by testing in most cases is so small that any effect on a person's property interest is de minimis. Therefore, we hold that, when there is probable cause to believe that a lawfully seized transparent container contains a controlled substance, opening the container, removing a modest quantity of its contents and subjecting it to chemical analysis for the sole purpose of confirming that it is a controlled substance, is not a search or seizure under the Oregon Constitution. Any language to the contrary in State v. Lowry, supra , is expressly disapproved. Article I, section 9, does not require that the police obtain a warrant before opening the transparent vial and clear plastic package lawfully seized from defendant's purse herein or testing their contents for the limited purpose of confirming the police officer's reasonable belief that they contained controlled substances. Neither would a warrant be required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 764 n. 13, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 2593-94 n. 13, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979); United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984). The decisions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court are reversed. The case is remanded for trial.