Court Opinion

ID: 9562372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:27:11.445539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:18.540354
License: Public Domain

RIGGS, J.,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority that, because possession of less than an ounce of marijuana is a violation for which a person cannot be arrested, the officer’s discovery, in the cab of defendant’s pickup, of the pipe containing residue of less than *244one ounce of marijuana did not, by itself, give rise to probable cause to believe that there was contraband in the truck sufficient to justify an arrest. State v. Tollman, 76 Or App 715, 719, 712 P2d 116 (1985). I also agree that neither the set of scales nor the unopened film canister, by themselves, provided probable cause to believe that the film canister contained contraband. I would hold, however, that the three items together, and considered in the light of the officer’s knowledge and experience and defendant’s nervousness and agitation, provided probable cause to believe that defendant had committed the crime of possession of a controlled substance. Accordingly, I would hold that the officer could conduct a search incident to the presumed arrest for that crime, State v. Owens, 302 Or 196, 729 P2d 524 (1986); State v. McCrory, 84 Or App 390, 392, 734 P2d 359 (1987), and would affirm the trial court’s holding that the officer was permitted on that basis to open the film canister and to test its contents and that those contents are admissible in his trial.
Contrary to the majority’s view, I do not think that it was essential that defendant behave furtively specifically with regard to the closed container. Here, defendant was nervous and agitated generally. Additionally, the fact that we are not informed of the exact location of the set of scales in relation to the pipe or film canister is of no consequence to me. The discovery of those items in the pickup cab, together with the officer’s knowledge of their use with drugs, gave the officer probable cause to believe that contraband would be found.
In the light of my view as to the search of the film canister, I would also hold that the officer had probable cause to search defendant’s wallet for drugs. I would affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to suppress and therefore dissent.