Court Opinion

ID: 9631719
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:47:15.977747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:59.699239
License: Public Domain

ROSSMAN, J.,
dissenting.
I must dissent. The lead opinion holds together fairly well until it collapses at the end, where it finally divines an answer to what it acknowledges to be the determinative question: Did Officer Barrong act reasonably in asking to look in the backpack to determine ownership of the vehicle? Of course he acted reasonably; it is what is known as “good police work.”
The analysis is as simple as this: The officer was in the midst of a statutorily authorized and ongoing investigation of a lawful traffic stop. ORS 803.505; ORS 803.320. As the majority concedes, he was rightfully trying to ascertain who owned the vehicle and whether the driver had a license. He testified that he thought that the vehicle registration could be in the backpack. The trial judge, who saw the witness firsthand, believed him. Given our limited review of trial court findings, that should be the end of the inquiry. The occupants of the vehicle gave the officer their voluntary *630consent to look into the backpack. He looked, and he saw what there was to see. What is unreasonable about that?
The lead opinion misreads the governing statute and misperceives the word “reasonable.” In doing so, it has set us on a dangerous course. I foresee the day when an officer, confronted with the same situation as was Barrong, accepts an invitation to open a backpack and — rather than dope— discovers a ticking bomb or a body part. Given the majority’s holding today, that evidence would be inadmissible. That just cannot be right. Rather than having to scurry around then to find the right answer, we should do it now when it is staring us in our collective faces.