Court Opinion

ID: 9883300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:39:47.895132+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:22.516514
License: Public Domain

BUTTLER, J.,
specially concurring.
This case was remanded to us to reconsider it in the light of State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 729 P2d 524 (1986), which is the lead opinion for four cases decided by the Supreme Court on the same day that involve the common question of whether the police, after lawfully seizing a closed container, needed a warrant in order to open it and remove and test its contents to determine whether it contained a controlled substance. The other three cases are State v. Westlund, 302 Or 225, 729 P2d 541 (1986); State v. Forseth, 302 Or 233, 729 P2d 545 (1986), and State v. Herbert, 302 Or 237, 729 P2d 547 (1986), all of which expressly rely on Owens.
The majority has refused to apply the analysis adopted by the court in Owens, even though we were directed to reconsider this case in the light of that one. It has decided only that the officers had probable cause to seize the paperfold and, therefore, could open it and test its contents, quoting the ultimate conclusion of the court in Owens. Owens, however, *395requires a two-step analysis, the first one requiring a determination that the seizure of the container was lawful. If so, it must then be determined whether the police could, without a warrant, open the container and remove its contents for chemical analysis. In applying that analysis, the court recognized that there are two incidents of constitutional significance involved — the initial seizure of the container and the opening of it — each of which requires separate analysis. It may be that in many, if not most, cases, the analysis of the second step will be perfunctory, because the container is transparent or otherwise announces its contents. However, if that is not the case, the second step becomes important and we should not ignore it, as the majority does in this case and in State v. Larsen, 84 Or App 403, 734 P2d 362 (1987).
In Owens, after concluding that the officer’s warrantless seizure of a transparent vial from the defendant was lawful, because he had probable cause to believe that it contained a controlled substance, the court posed the next question: “whether the opening of a transparent container for the testing of its contents is a ‘search’ or ‘seizure’ under the Oregon Constitution, when there is probable cause to believe it contained a controlled substance.” State v. Owens, supra, 302 Or at 205. In response to that question, it pointed out that, if those intrusions were searches or seizures, neither intrusion could be carried out without “probable cause and a search warrant or separate justification under one of the few, carefully circumscribed exceptions to the warrant requirement.” 302 Or at 205. (Emphasis supplied.) The court stated that Article I, section 9, protects privacy and possessory interests, that a “search” occurs when a person’s privacy interests are invaded and that some containers, which, by their very nature, announce their contents, do not support a cognizable privacy interest. It said that the transparent containers announced their contents the same as if their contents had been discovered in “plain view.” Therefore, by analogy to the “plain view” doctrine, the court held that there was no “search,” because no cognizable privacy interest inheres in the contents of transparent containers and that they could be opened and their contents seized without a warrant.
Owens went on to hold that, because the police were *396authorized to open the closed container and to seize the contents, “a chemical test * * * to confirm the presence of whatever the police have probable cause to believe is present in that item” is not a “search,” because it does not infringe any privacy interest protected by the Oregon Constitution. 302 Or at 206. It is not a “seizure,” the court said, because there is no significant interference with a person’s possessory or ownership interest in the property.
Westlund and Forseth involved transparent containers, as did Owens. In each case, after the court concluded that the warrantless seizure of the containers was lawful, the court went on to hold, without discussion, that they could be opened and their contents tested, citing Owens. Herbert was different from the other three cases, in that the closed container was an opaque paperfold, rather than a transparent container. For that reason, the majority here is justified in relying on it to some extent, but not to the exclusion of the analysis prescribed by Owens, on which Herbert relies. Concededly, Herbert is confusing, because, in deciding whether the officer had probable cause to seize the paperfold (the first step), the court stated that it was not necessary to decide whether an opaque paperfold is such a unique container for illicit drugs that it announces its contents. That was a correct statement, because there were other facts which, together with the type of container, provided probable cause to seize. However, in holding that the officer could take the next step of opening the container and testing its contents without a warrant, the court merely cited Owens, summarizing it briefly, as it did in Westlund and Forseth.
The majority here attributes sleight of hand to the Supreme Court by holding, apparently, that in Herbert the court disavowed its painstaking analysis in Owens, the lead case on which Herbert purports to rely. I would not do that. Herbert, Westlund and Forseth were argued and submitted in January, 1986. Owens was not argued and submitted until six months later. Yet, Owens was published first and is relied on by the other three cases, and is the only one of the four cases in which all seven judges participated. It is obvious that the court, over almost one year, was attempting to resolve a problem that had been nagging lawyers, trial judges and this court since State v. Lowry, 295 Or 337, 667 P2d 996 (1983). The majority has reinstated that nagging problem, because it *397ignores the second step in analysis that Owens concluded was necessary.
Perhaps it is a problem, given Herbert, that only the Supreme Court can resolve, once again. However, I think that it is implicit in Herbert that, even though the court did not rely solely on the uniqueness of the paperfold in deciding whether there was probable cause to seize it, it did so in deciding that the container could be opened without a warrant, citing Owens. In other words, a paperfold, like a transparent container, announces its contents; therefore, defendant had no cognizable privacy interest in it, and opening it was not a search. Further, removing the contents was not a “seizure,” because there was no “significant interference” with defendant’s possessory interest in it. State v. Owens, supra, 302 Or at 206.
Given my understanding of the four cases decided November 20, 1986, I concur in the result reached by the majority. I write separately only to deplore its resurrecting the confusion that existed before those cases were decided.