State v. Blair, 361 Or. 527

Officers found defendant (Danny Blair) after a report of a man chased by armed attackers; defendant appeared agitated and possibly impaired.
Sergeant Jackson accompanied Blair to retrieve a backpack Blair had left on a hill; Jackson asked, casually, for permission to search the backpack; Blair replied, “Yeah, no problem. Go ahead.”
Inside the backpack was an opaque plastic grocery bag closed with a knot; Jackson untied the knot and discovered a Ziploc bag containing psilocybin mushrooms.
Blair was charged with possession of a controlled substance and moved to suppress the mushroom evidence under Article I, § 9 of the Oregon Constitution; the trial court denied the motion and Blair was convicted after a conditional no-contest plea.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the consent to search the backpack did not necessarily extend to opening the knotted grocery bag inside; the state sought review to argue that general, unqualified consent to search an item authorizes opening unlocked containers found within it.
The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, vacated the conviction, and remanded for the trial court to apply the correct factual inquiry about Blair’s actual intent regarding the scope of consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Blair)	Held
Whether unqualified consent to search an outer container authorizes opening closed, unlocked containers inside	A general, unqualified “yes” to a police officer’s request to “search” an item should presumptively include opening closed, unlocked containers found within, absent specific evidence limiting scope	Consent did not extend to the knotted grocery bag; the state bears the burden to prove scope and failed to show Blair intended to allow opening inner containers	Court held scope of consent is a factual inquiry into what the defendant actually intended; remanded because the trial court’s factual finding on that intent is unclear and competing inferences are permissible
Whether a default rule should treat officer’s word “search” + officer status as dispositive for scope (nested containers)	The word “search” and that the requester is a police officer imply seeking contraband and thus permit opening inner containers without more	Such a default rule improperly shifts burden to defendant and ignores surrounding circumstances that may limit scope	Court rejected the proposed default corollary; surrounding circumstances matter and the state must prove consent extended to inner containers

Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248 (USSC) (objective-reasonableness approach to scope of consent under Fourth Amendment)
Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (USSC) (voluntariness of consent is a totality-of-the-circumstances factual inquiry)
Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (USSC) (Fourth Amendment permits searches based on reasonable but mistaken belief in third-party authority)
State v. Bonilla, 358 Or 475 (Or. 2015) (warrantless searches per se unreasonable; consent exception requires proof)
State v. Weaver, 319 Or 212 (Or. 1994) (state bears burden to prove existence and scope of consent; intent of consenting person matters)
State v. Arroyo-Sotelo, 131 Or App 290 (Or. Ct. App. 1994) (adopted an objective-reasonableness/totality-of-circumstances test for scope of consent under Article I, § 9)
State v. Brown, 348 Or 293 (Or. 2010) (consent exception premised on relinquishment of privacy interest when consent is actually given)