Court Opinion

ID: 9792992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:40:32.98429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:22.588988
License: Public Domain

BRYSON, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result. On the facts, this is not a Miranda case. Defendant was under arrest, in the custody of two police officers. Therefore, the search was pursuant to a lawful arrest. State v. Hoover, 219 *80Or 288, 347 P2d 69 (1960); State v. Elk, 249 Or 614, 439 P2d 1011 (1968).
The evidence disclosed that some of the stamps in the suitcase of the defendant had been removed and placed in the bathroom where they could be disposed of easily.
The purloined goods, “stamps,” were subject to “flushing,” the same as drugs or any other disposable item the subject of reasonable search, and this case falls in the same category as such search and seizure cases involving drugs. State v. Peterson, 3 Or App 17, 469 P2d 40 (1970); State v. Murphy, 2 Or App 251, 465 P2d 900 (1970).
I do not believe the rules laid down by the United States Supreme Court pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution should be extended to rights under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Therefore, I would overrule State v. Williams, 248 Or 85, 432 P2d 679 (1967), as set forth in the dissent of Mr. Justice Holman in that case. See also Phillips v. People, 170 Colo 520, 527, 462 P2d 594, 597 (1969).