Court Opinion

ID: 9793135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:43:18.620604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:40.492386
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, P. J.,
concurring.
The majority decides this case on a ground that neither party argued and that the trial court did not consider. To do so, the majority relies on the principle of statutory construction that we are required to interpret a statute correctly, even though the parties jointly understand it to have a different meaning. The majority then concludes that ORS 166.250(l)(b) does not apply to defendant, a passenger in a vehicle, because “[tjhere was no evidence that defendant had ‘control or direction’ of the vehicle in which the handgun was found[.j” 161 Or App at 118.1 do not quarrel with the proposition that we should not be bound to an erroneous belief of the parties about the meaning of a statute. However, if the majority is going to decide this case on a ground not raised, it should consider all available grounds.
In reaching its result, the majority declines to consider whether ORS 166.250(l)(a) is applicable because “[tjhe state does not argue that the weapon in the present case was concealed on defendant’s person[.j” 161 Or App at 118. The majority forgets that this matter came about because defendant moved to suppress evidence on the ground that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him for possession of a gun. Although defendant is charged with supplying contraband under ORS 162.185(1), the officer testified that he arrested defendant for unlawful possession of a firearm. *121Which subsection of ORS 166.250(1) defendant should have been charged under for having a concealed weapon was never before the trial court, nor was the state required to make such an election or to take a position on that issue. Rather, the issue is whether there was initial probable cause to arrest defendant for any offense that was committed in the officer’s presence. If the officer has a substantial objective basis for believing that it is more likely than not that an offense, under ORS 166.250, has been committed in the officer’s presence, that is enough to make an arrest. ORS 131.005(11). If, in the furtherance of the policy of properly interpreting statutes, the majority is going to decide the issue of probable cause to arrest on the ground that ORS 166.250(l)(b) does not apply to defendant, then it should consider all subsections of the statute that are available to the state under the circumstances that existed.
ORS 166.250(1) includes two alternatives for the charging of an occupant of a vehicle with the unlawful possession of a concealed weapon that are relevant here:
“(1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, ORS 166.260, 166.270, 166.274, 166.280, 166.291, 166.292 or 166.410 to 166.470, a person commits the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm if the person knowingly:
“(a) Carries any firearm concealed upon the person, without having a license to carry the firearm as provided in ORS 166.291 and 166.292;
“(b) Carries concealed and readily accessible to the person within any vehicle which is under the person’s control or direction any handgun, without having a license to carry such firearm as provided in ORS 166.291 and 166.292[.]”
In interpreting a statute, our objective is to discern the legislature’s intent in promulgating the statute. Our first level of inquiry is to examine the text of the statute and its context when read in connection with other relevant statutes. Also, when the Supreme Court interprets a statute, that interpretation becomes a part of the statute as if it had been included in the statute at the time of its enactment. Gaston v. Parsons, 318 Or 247, 252, 864 P2d 1319 (1994). ORS 166.250(l)(a) and (b) describe circumstances under which a *122person unlawfully possesses a firearm, and they focus on the concealment of firearms under particular circumstances. Subsection (l)(a) applies to firearms concealed “upon the person,” and subsection (b) concerns concealing firearms by a person within a vehicle that is under that person’s control or direction. Because the officer had no information in this case that defendant controlled the vehicle or that it was under his direction, the majority is correct that the officer lacked probable cause to make an arrest for a violation of ORS 166.250(l)(b). However, for the reasons mentioned above, the inquiry does not end there.
When read in context with ORS 166.250(l)(b), it is apparent that ORS 166.250(l)(a) prohibits the carrying of a concealed weapon upon the person without a license, even if the possessor of the weapon is a passenger within a vehicle. The implicit predicate for the offense is the actual or constructive possession of a concealed weapon. In my view, there was probable cause for the officer to believe that defendant was in constructive possession of the gun underneath the seat of the vehicle in which he was a passenger. Constructive possession occurs when the possessor had control or the right to control the object in question. State v. Oare, 249 Or 597, 599, 439 P2d 885 (1968). Here, defendant was the closest person in the vehicle to the gun. The officer testified that defendant had unimpeded access to the gun and that the driver would have had to reach across the vehicle and under the passenger’s seat to have placed the gun there. Under the circumstances, the officer was entitled to believe that it was more likely than not that defendant was the individual who possessed the weapon under the seat.
In addition to having probable cause to believe that defendant was in possession of the firearm under the seat, ORS 166.250(l)(a) and (b) require that the firearm be concealed in a prohibited place. The Supreme Court’s holding in State v. Anfield, 313 Or 554, 836 P2d 1337 (1992), is instructive. In that case, the defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance that was discovered after his arrest for the unlawful possession of a firearm. When the arresting officer arrived at the scene of a vehicle accident, the defendant was observed holding a black bag in one hand. The officer thought the bag “looked like a gun bag of a type that was *123sold at local sporting goods stores and that he had seen at his shooting range.” Id. at 556. When the defendant dropped the bag on the pavement, the officer heard a metallic clunk that sounded to the officer as though the bag contained firearms. The officer lifted the bag a few inches off the ground and felt it. He squeezed the bag and discerned the outlines of guns inside the bag. He then unzipped the bag and discovered two loaded pistols, which led to the arrest of the defendant for the unlawful possession of a concealed firearm.
The defendant moved to suppress the evidence of the controlled substance on the ground that his arrest was unlawful because the guns “were not ‘upon his person.’ ” Id. at 557. At the time of the defendant’s arrest, ORS 166.250(l)(b) (1987) provided that a person unlawfully possesses a firearm if that person knowingly “Marries any firearm concealed upon the person, without having a license to carry such firearmf.]” Defendant argued that the statute meant that it was unlawfiil to carry a concealed firearm “ ‘on, not near a person’s body.’ ” Anfield, 313 Or at 558. He explained that “ ‘[t]emporarily holding a gun bag in one’s hand and not on one’s person cannot satisfy the “upon” language of the statute.’ ” Id. (bracketed material in original).
The court rejected the defendant’s argument, holding:
“While we have found no Oregon case in point, we agree with the analysis of other courts that have concluded that the language, ‘upon the person,’ includes purses, handbags, bags, and their contents, when they are carried in the manner that defendant was carrying this bag. The pertinent consideration is whether defendant carried the bag, not the fact that it was a bag or how long defendant carried it. [The officer] saw defendant carrying a bag. While defendant held the bag, it and, necessarily, its contents were ‘upon the person’ of defendant. [The officer] later learned that the bag contained weapons. [The officer], therefore, had probable cause, as defined by ORS 131.005(11), to believe that defendant had violated ORS 166.250(l)(b) (1987).” Anfield, 313 Or at 559 (citations omitted).
In light of the court’s holding in Anfield and its intrepretation of the identical lanaguge that governs this case, the issue becomes whether defendant’s possession of the firearm *124under his seat constituted a place of concealment prohibited by the statute. The officer testified:
“Q. Now, did you ever see [defendant] in possession of the firearm?
“A. In actual hands-on possession, no. But it was in constructive possession in that it was within his grasp or not grasp but within his area of control, easily retrievable in less than a second.”
In other words, would the legislature have contemplated that a concealed firearm, easily retrievable in less than a second by its possessor, would constitute a “firearm concealed upon the person” of the possessor for purposes of ORS 166.250(l)(a)? Perhaps — had the legislature thought about the problem that this case presents in light of common, modern day societal ills such as drive-by shootings and other events involving the illegal use of firearms. However, the language of the existing statute1 does not afford that interpretation.
ORS 166.250(l)(a) and (b) focus on places of concealment and not whether there is easy access to an object. ORS 166.250(l)(b) makes it unlawful to conceal a weapon in places in a vehicle where it is readily accessible to the person having control over the vehicle. Similarly, ORS 166.250(l)(a) makes it unlawful to conceal weapons in places that are “upon the person.” The phrase, “firearm[s] concealed upon the person” refers to firearms concealed by clothing as well as firearms concealed in clothing or other containers that have had contact with the person such as a coat, a briefcase, a suitcase or a bag. In Anfield, the prohibited place of concealment was a bag that the defendant had been carrying. While a defendant could be in actual or constructive possession of a weapon, a fact inferable from the person’s proximity and unimpeded access to the weapon, ORS 166.250(l)(a) and (b) also require a showing that the firearm was concealed in a prohibited place.
*125In this case, the officer was entitled to infer that defendant was in constructive possession of the firearm. However, the place where, the officer could have believed, defendant concealed the firearm was not on his person or in a vehicle under his control. Because defendant did not conceal the firearm in a place prohibited by the statute, the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him.
For the reasons expressed, I concur in the majority’s result.

 The statutory language “concealed upon his person” in ORS 166.250 had its genesis in 1925. Or Laws 1925, ch 260, § 5. Subsequently, that language was codified as Oregon Code 1930 § 72-205. In 1953, this language was included in ORS 166.250.