State v. Bennett, 338 P.3d 143

This is a criminal case with Bennett and McCall challenging a pretrial suppression ruling; state cross-appeals seeking reversal of denial of suppression.
The dispute centers on searches of McCall’s Cadillac, a backpack found in the car, and a second search of that backpack during a buy-bust operation.
An informant linked Bennett to drug activity and to McCall’s marijuana grow operation; police conducted controlled buys and recorded conversations.
During a January 20 buy-bust at a grocery store, officers arrested McCall in the Cadillac and found marijuana and a backpack containing a loaded handgun and McCall’s paperwork.
A separate later search retrieved Vicodin from the backpack after McCall asked for his catheter; the second search became a central suppression issue.
The trial court denied suppression for the car and glove box but suppressed the backpack’s first-search evidence and later the Vicodin; the appellate court weighs automobile and officer-safety exceptions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether automobile exception applies to the car search	State: probable cause existed; car mobile, warrant not needed.	McCall/Bennett: no sufficient probable cause for car or backpack.	Automobile exception valid; probable cause established to search Cadillac and backpack.
Whether the scope of the automobile search extended to the backpack	State: backpack within scope as a container reasonably expected to hold contraband.	Backpack search exceeded scope when opened.	Backpack fell within automobile-exception scope; initial search of backpack was valid.
Whether the second backpack search (30–45 minutes later) was justified	State: officer safety exception applied due to McCall’s handgun awareness and access needs.	No immediate threat; officer safety not justified; search suppressed.	Officer safety exception did not apply; second search suppressed.
Preservation and linkage of cross-appeal	State preserved argument via pretrial response; cross-appeal tied to state appeal.	Cross-appeal broader and not properly preserved.	Cross-appeal is preserved; issues are inextricably linked to state appellate reasoning.

State v. Brown, 301 Or 268 (1986) (probable cause for automobile search; mobility and scope.)
State v. Smalley, 233 Or App 263 (2010) (scope of automobile-exception search to containers.)
State v. Bates, 304 Or 519 (1987) (officer safety exception—elements and application.)
State v. Ehly, 317 Or 66 (1993) (officer safety and weapon-containment principles.)
State v. Steffens, 250 Or App 742 (2012) (reasonable suspicion standard for officer safety.)
State v. Wiggins, 247 Or App 490 (2011) (temporal scope of automobile-exception searches (not controlling here).)
State v. Bellar, 231 Or App 80 (2009) (review of pretrial appeals; discretion in cross-appeals.)
State v. Shaw, 338 Or 586 (2005) (discretionary review standards for pretrial orders.)
State v. Hite, 198 Or App 1 (2005) (officer safety doctrine in context of searches.)
State v. Marsing, 244 Or App 556 (2011) (probable cause to search multiple vehicle areas connected to drug activity.)