Court Opinion

ID: 9586985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:17:04.848168+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:58.308166
License: Public Domain

*116ROSSMAN, J.
Defendant appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, ORS 475.992(4), contending that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized and searched when the police conducted an inventory when he was booked into jail on another charge. We affirm.
At approximately 3:20 a.m. on February 4, 1988, defendant was arrested by Officer Schweitz of the Coos Bay Police Department for driving under the influence of intoxicants and while his license was suspended. He was taken to the Coos County Corrections Facility in North Bend, where Deputy Sheriff Brinkley searched defendant and found a black compact in one of his boots; he opened it, because he thought it contained drugs and because jail policy required him to open closed containers and inventory the contents to prevent claims from being made. When he opened the compact, he found what he believed to be cocaine.
The trial court found that defendant had no access to the container when Brinkley opened it, that Brinkley had time to apply for a search warrant and that the search at the jail was not incidental to defendant’s original arrest. It held that the officer, while conducting the legitimate search of defendant’s person pursuant to a jail inventory procedure, developed probable cause to arrest defendant for possession of drugs when he found the compact and that, although defendant had not been arrested on that charge, the search of the compact was incident to the “second” arrest.
The trial court was correct. “[I]f in the course of a proper inventory evidence of another crime is discovered, the evidence may be seized upon probable cause to believe that it relates to another crime.” State v. McCrory, 84 Or App 390, 392, 734 P2d 359 (1987). The test for probable cause is “what this officer actually believed, based upon the underlying facts of which he was cognizant, together with his own training and experience.” State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 204, 729 P2d 524 (1986). In this case, the officer conducting the inventory had more than nine years of experience as a deputy sheriff, most of it as a corrections officer, and had been trained to recognize drug packaging. He testified that, while conducting bookings at the jail, he had found controlled substances in containers similar to defendant’s compact at least one hundred times. *117Additionally, defendant was concealing it. To an officer of Brinkley’s training and experience, the black compact announced its contents. See State v. McCrory, supra, 84 Or App at 393.1
Citing State v. Ridderbush, 71 Or App 418, 692 P2d 667 (1984), defendant argues that, once a defendant has been handcuffed, placed in custody and taken to jail, a proper search incident to arrest has been concluded. Apparently, he reads Ridderbush as a blanket prohibition against the warrantless search of closed, opaque containers during an inventory. However, Ridderbush did not involve a situation in which the booking officer discovered facts giving him probable cause to believe that a second crime had been committed. Rather, it defined the point at which the search incident to the original arrest had concluded. 71 Or App at 423. Nothing in Ridderbush limits the search of containers made incident to an ongoing arrest. See also State v. Owens, supra, 302 Or at 201.
Affirmed.

 In McCrory, an officer booking a defendant for assault found a paperfold or “bindle” in her jacket pocket. Without a warrant, the officer opened the paperfold and found a white powder that later proved to be methamphetamine. The court noted that, “[ajlthough Owens concerned a transparent container, its holding extends to those containers which otherwise ‘announce their contents.’ ” 84 Or App at 393. Reasoning that, to an officer with sufficient training and experience in drug detection, the bindle announced its contents, the court held that the officer had probable cause to believe that the defendant was in possession of a controlled substance. 84 Or App at 394. That was true despite the fact that the paperfold could have been used to carry fish hooks or radish seeds, because “[pjrobable cause * * * does not require absolute certainty.” 84 Or App at 394. Given Brinkley’s experience and training, the present case is indistinguishable from McCrory,