Court Opinion

ID: 9539165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:47:40.420586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:28.679505
License: Public Domain

DURHAM, J.,
concurring.
I concur with the majority’s result but not its reasoning. In a search incident to arrest, “[ojrdinarily, the seized articles must be in plain view, or, if not, then within the immediate control of the prisoner and accessible without unreasonable exploring, rummaging or ransacking.” State v. Chinn, 231 Or 259, 268, 373 P2d 392 (1962). The contents of defendant’s glove box were not in plain view. Although the court made no specific finding regarding the “immediate control” prong of the Chinn test, the evidence would support a finding that that prong was satisfied. For that reason, we will presume that the facts were decided in a manner consistent with the court’s ultimate conclusion that the search incident to arrest was reasonable. See State v. Parker, 317 Or 225, 230, 855 P2d 636 (1993); Ball v. Gladden, 250 Or 485, 487, 443 P2d 621 (1968). Applying that rule, I conclude that the trial court implicitly found that the contents of the glove box were within defendant’s immediate control and were accessible without unreasonable exploring, rummaging or ransacking.
*491I do not agree with the majority’s discussion of the scope of the officer’s investigation. 122 Or App at 490. The permissible scope of a search incident to arrest is governed not by what an officer might believe is a reasonable DUII investigation, but by court-made rules defining this limited exception to the warrant requirement. As we said in State v. Kirsch, 69 Or App 418, 422, 688 P2d 446 (1984):
“Under Article I, section 9, a warrantless search is permissible as incident to an arrest when it is for the protection of the officer, the preservation of evidence, or ‘when it is relevant to the crime for which defendant is being arrested and so long as it is reasonable in light of all the facts.’ State v. Caraher, 293 Or 741, 759, 653 P2d 942 (1982) (emphasis supplied); see also State v. O’Neal, 251 Or 163, 444 P2d 951 (1968); State v. Krogness, 238 Or 135, 388 P2d 120 (1963); State v. Chinn, 231 Or 259, 373 P2d 392 (1962).
“A search incident to arrest must be reasonable in scope, time and intensity. State v. Caraher, [supra], 293 Or at 758; State v. Chinn, supra. It may not be an exploratory search but must be closely tied to the crime or crimes for which the police have a right to arrest the person searched. A different rule ‘would open the door to complete temporary confiscation of all an arrested person’s property which was in his immediate possession and control at the time of his arrest for the purpose of minute examination of it in an effort to connect him with another crime. ’ State v. Elkins, 245 Or 279, 287, 422 P2d 250 (1966). Because a search incident to an arrest is a warrantless search, the opportunity to obtain a warrant is an important limitation on the right to continue the search. ‘[W]hen a search reaches a logical stopping point the police must seek a warrant before proceeding further.’ State v. Flores, 68 Or App 617, 634, 685 P2d 999 (1984). (Emphasis supplied.)”
We should not determine the reasonableness of a search incident to arrest by what the officer regards as a reasonable investigation of the crime for which the defendant is arrested.
For related reasons, I do not agree with the majority’s attempt to distinguish State v. Brody, 69 Or App 469, 686 P2d 451 (1984). 122 Or App at 489 n 6. In Brody, the court affirmed the suppression of evidence seized from a glove box during a search incident to a DUII arrest. The majority suggests that this case is not governed by Brody because, here, the officer articulated a reason for searching the glove *492box, and that reason related to her DUII investigation. That is a hollow distinction. The Brody result is attributable more to the procedural posture of the case on appeal than to the absence of an officer’s explanation for searching the defendant’s glove box. See State v. Brody, supra, 69 Or App at 474 (Gillette, P. J., concurring). Nothing in Brody suggests that the court would have reached a different result had the officer provided an explanation of his reason for searching the glove box. A search that exceeds the permissible limits of a lawful search incident to arrest does not acquire validity simply because the officer provides an explanation for the search. Similarly, a reasonable search incident to arrest is not vulnerable to attack because the officer does not articulate a reason for each step of the search.