State v. Andersen
361 Or. 187
| Or. | 2017Background
- Police arranged a controlled buy of meth from an informant; seller (defendant) was expected to arrive in a silver Jeep at a WinCo/Plaid Pantry area.
- Officer McNair overheard the seller’s companion (Compton) on a phone call say “we’re pulling in” and “I’m arriving,” confirming the Jeep was en route.
- Officer Henderson briefly left one part of the lot, returned about a minute later, and saw the Jeep across parking lines with engine running and defendant in the driver’s seat; two passengers were interacting nearby.
- Henderson observed behavior (Compton leaning into the vehicle, occupants re-entering) that, together with prior information, gave probable cause to believe drugs were in the Jeep.
- Officers stopped the vehicle from leaving, a drug dog alerted, and methamphetamine was found in defendant’s purse; defendant moved to suppress, arguing the automobile exception did not apply because officers never saw the car moving.
- Trial court denied suppression; Court of Appeals reversed; Oregon Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeals, affirming the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Andersen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oregon's automobile exception applies when officers first encounter a vehicle that has momentarily come to rest but is not parked, immobile, and unoccupied | Vehicle was mobile when officers encountered it (aural confirmation it was "pulling in" and only momentarily stopped); analogous to Meharry — exception applies | Exception requires officers to see a vehicle in motion when they first encounter it; momentary rest makes it merely "movable," not "mobile" | Held: Exception applies. Vehicle was mobile when first encountered (aural evidence + momentary stop comparable to Meharry); warrantless search valid under automobile exception |
| Whether Brown and the automobile-exception doctrine should be overruled because warrants can now be obtained quickly via modern technology | Even with tech advances, the record showed warrants would have taken hours here; courts should decide exigency case-by-case, not abolish the exception categorically | Asked court to overrule Brown given modern warrant procedures | Held: Declined to overrule. Recognized potential for future cases where rapid warrant acquisition negates exigency; but on this record exigency persisted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 301 Or 268 (establishing Oregon automobile exception: vehicle must be mobile and probable cause must exist)
- State v. Kock, 302 Or 29 (automobile exception does not apply to vehicles that are parked, immobile, and unoccupied when first encountered)
- State v. Meharry, 342 Or 173 (automobile exception applies where officer first encountered vehicle while it was mobile even if it had momentarily stopped before officer restrained it)
- State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 351 Or 179 (reaffirmed Brown/Kock line: exception requires vehicle be mobile when police encounter it)
- State v. Machuca, 347 Or 644 (exigency and ability to obtain a warrant quickly are factual inquiries; warrants may sometimes be obtained fast enough to obviate exigency)