Court Opinion

ID: 9848183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:14:12.11144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:05.894058
License: Public Domain

*823THORNTON, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority opinion totally ignores the fact that after the officers turned on the overhead flashing lights on their patrol car, the action of the driver in making repeated movements and appearing to be engaged in placing or moving some objects within the front seat area was a strong indication that defendant was attempting to hide some object, such as contraband or a weapon, from the approaching police officers.1 Having seen defendant make multiple furtive movements dining the pursuit, and having discovered the open container of vodka in the glove compartment, the officers had probable cause to make a limited search of the front seat area for other open containers and for possible contraband. See State v. Head, 13 Or App 317, 509 P2d 52 (1973), where we held that under the totality of the circumstances the officer had probable cause to search the automobile following defendant’s attempt to conceal a hat visible in front seat containing marijuana. See also State v. Stacey, 17 Or App 662, 523 P2d 612, rev den (1974); State v. Krohn, 15 Or App 63, 514 P2d 1359 (1973), rev den (1974); State v. Emfinger, 6 Or App 328, 487 P2d 1393 (1971); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 US 42, 90 S Ct 1975, 26 L Ed 2d 419 (1970); State v. Greene, 285 Or 337, 591 P2d 1362 (1979). Officer Rainey, while making this search, saw the compact and the folded bank envelope in plain view on the floorboard of defendant’s automobile.
Officer Rainey, having seen the furtive gestures and having had previous training and experience in recognizing narcotics and narcotics paraphernalia, was on the alert for any suspicious items in the automobile and was justified in checking the compact and envelope. These were not repositories of personal effects coming within the protection of the closed container rule. Cf. State v. Downes, 285 Or 369, 591 P2d 1352 (1979); State v. Groda, 285 Or 321, 591 P2d 1354 (1979). The officer’s inspection of the contents of the two containers was lawful. After having found *824cocaine in the compact, the officer had probable cause to believe he might also find a controlled substance in the bank envelope, which lay next to the compact on the floor of the auto.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.

This movement has been termed in police parlance as the "forward lean.” Some courts have held this to be a "furtive gesture” or conduct which reasonably led the officer to believe that the suspect was trying to hide evidence under the seat or on the floor and afforded, in combination with other facts, a reasonable basis for stopping and searching the car. See cases collected in Annotation, Search and Seizure — Furtive Gesture, 45 ALR3d 581 (1972) and 1980 supplement.