Court Opinion

ID: 9626731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:22:30.72689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:32.587204
License: Public Domain

De MUNIZ, J.,
specially concurring.
I agree with the result and most of the reasoning in the lead opinion. However, that opinion suggests that evidence obtained as a result of an inventory conducted during a civil detox hold can never be used by the state in a criminal prosecution. I disagree with that proposition.
Defendant was seized when he was taken into civil custody. However, his seizure was without a warrant or probable cause to believe that he had committed a crime. In State v. Boyanovsky, 304 Or 131, 743 P2d 711 (1987), the Supreme Court said:
“[S]ome ‘searches’ and ‘seizures,’ conducted for reasons other than the enforcement of laws by means of criminal sanctions, may be authorized by the responsible lawmakers * * * without the customary advance judicial authorization of a warrant.
“[However, bjefore government officials can embark on a search or seizure for evidence to be used for [criminal prosecution], they must have individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. Further, unless they can show to a court’s satisfaction, after the fact, that they did not have time to obtain a warrant, the authorities must have judicial authorization, in the form of a warrant, before the search or seizure.” 304 Or at 133.
A civil hold is “ostensibly for the person’s own good.” State v. Okeke, 304 Or 367, 373, 745 P2d 418 (1987). By enacting ORS 426.460, the legislature authorized the police to undertake a “caretaking” function outside the scope of criminal law enforcement.
Under the case law, when the police enter a residence on a “community caretaking” function, crime evidence encountered must be suppressed and cannot support a search warrant, if the entry was not made pursuant to statutory authority. See State v. Bridewell, 306 Or 231, 759 P2d 1054 (1988); State v. Sanchez, 105 Or App 451, 805 P2d 153 (1991); State v. Paulson, 103 Or App 23,795 P2d 611, rev allowed 311 Or 13 (1990); State v. Bramson, 94 Or App 374, 765 P2d 824 *436(1988).1 In the present case, the police were performing a statutorily authorized caretaking function. I cannot conclude that when an officer, acting under statutory authority, lawfully encounters evidence that gives rise to probable cause, the state is invariably barred from using that evidence in a criminal prosecution.
In State v. Lawrence, 58 Or App 423, 431, 648 P2d 1332, rev den 293 Or 801 (1982), we said that it is reasonable for an officer to inventory the personal property of a person under a civil detox hold. The inventory protects the property and helps to maintain the security of the detention facility. See ORS 133.455. In the light of the “caretaking” purpose of ORS 426.460, we said:
“Given the fact that the purpose of ORS 426.460 is to protect intoxicated persons by keeping them in custody for a limited period (48 hours), rather than treating them as criminals, it would be anomalous to treat them the same as one in full custody arrest for a criminal offense. * * *
“[The] inventory process in noncriminal, nonemergency cases should be less intrusive than that considered reasonable in criminal cases. Once a closed container is taken from the person during inventory of his property and is in the exclusive control of the police, it is unreasonable to open the container and seize its contents without a warrant unless the contents are in plain view and are identified as contraband without the necessity of laboratory analysis.”
Defendant concedes that the paperfold was discovered during a lawful inventory. The paperfold is a closed *437container that “announces its contents” and thus gives rise to probable cause to believe that it contains a controlled substance. State v. Shelton, 105 Or App 570, 573, 805 P2d 698, rev den 311 Or 427 (1991); State v. McCrory, 84 Or App 390, 397, 734 P2d 359 (1987) (Buttler, J., specially concurring). However, its contents were not literally in plain view; neither could they be confirmed as contraband without laboratory testing. The requirement that a civil detox inventory be less intrusive than a “full custody arrest” inventory made it unreasonable for the police to open the paperfold without first obtaining a warrant. The warrantless opening of the paperfold rendered its contents inadmissible.
The cases cited in the lead opinion do not address the admissibility of evidence encountered during a civil detox hold when the police obtain a warrant after encountering evidence during an inventory. In this case, the police could have obtained a warrant supported by probable cause. State v. Boyanovsky, supra, and State v. Bridewell, supra, and its progeny indicate that, had the police taken that reasonable step, the cocaine in the paperfold would have been admissible.

 In 1991, the legislature enacted Or Laws 1991, ch 959, § 1, codified as ORS 133.033. It provides, in part:
“(1) Except as otherwise expressly prohibited by law, any peace officer of this state, as defined in ORS 133.005, is authorized to perform community caretaking functions.
“(2) As used in this section, ‘community caretaking function’ means any lawful acts that are inherent in the duty of the peace officer to serve and protect the public. ‘Community caretaking functions’ includes, but is not limited to:
“(a) The right to enter or remain upon the premises of another if it reasonably appears to be necessary to:
“(A) Prevent serious harm to any person or property;
“(B) Render aid to injured or ill persons; or
“(C) Locate missing persons.”
I express no opinion on how that statute affects Bridewell and its progeny.