Court Opinion

ID: 9848404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:18:49.765007+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:16.766110
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in that part of the specially concurring opinion stating that the officer had probable cause to *626search the trunk for the stolen gun and that it was impracticable to secure a warrant. I' am not called upon to decide a case in which it was practicable to secure a warrant but none was secured.
I believe it is a close question whether the officer had probable cause to seize the beer. It is not necessary to decide that question. The officers had the right, and perhaps owed the defendant the duty, to impound the defendant’s car and its contents. See ORS 142.210. I interpret the testimony of the officers to be that they did not seize the beer but took it into their custody, and inventoried it, for safekeeping. They did this before they had the ear towed in for storage. They did the same with tool's and wrenches which were found in the trunk. There is no claim that these tools and wrenches were not the property of the defendant (except a saw) and no suspicion was ever voiced that the officers believed these tools and wrenches (except the saw) were the fruits or evidence of a crime. There is no inference that the officers used the right or duty to impound the car as a subterfuge to search the car.
After the officers learned that the beer was stolen there is no constitutional reason they cannot change the motive for their custody of the beer.
McAllister, J., joins in this specially concurring opinion.