State v. Bunch, 468 P.3d 973

Officer Volin went to a restaurant to arrest Bunch on a probation-warrant tip and saw a purse on the chair in front of her while she was at a slot machine.
After Volin arrested Bunch, she twice denied that the purse was hers, saying it belonged to a friend who had left; a companion also denied ownership.
Volin removed Bunch’s phone and charger from the open purse and returned them; he then transported the purse to the police station for “safekeeping” and to identify the owner.
At the station, without a warrant or inventory, Volin searched the purse to find ID; he found bindles of methamphetamine and heroin in a metal wallet and later items bearing Bunch’s name.
Bunch moved to suppress the drug evidence under Article I, § 9 of the Oregon Constitution and the Fourth Amendment; the trial court denied suppression, concluding the search was of “lost property” and that Bunch had abandoned the purse.
On appeal the court reversed: it held the record did not support a lost-property belief and Bunch had not unequivocally abandoned her possessory/privacy interests, so the warrantless search was not justified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Volin could lawfully search the purse as "lost property" without a warrant	Volin was uncertain who owned the purse and permissibly searched to identify the owner	Volin did not have a subjective (or objectively reasonable) belief the purse was lost; the search was investigatory and required a warrant or consent	Search could not be justified as a lost-property search; officer lacked the required subjective/objective belief, so no lost-property exception
Whether Bunch abandoned her possessory/privacy interests by denying ownership and not objecting when Volin took the purse	Bunch disclaimed ownership twice and did not assert control after Volin said he would take it, so she abandoned any protected interest	A denial of ownership is not necessarily abandonment; circumstances (purse next to Bunch, open, containing her items, request for phone/charger) show she retained possessory/privacy interests	Bunch did not unequivocally abandon the purse; mere acquiescence and a disclaimer did not relinquish her Article I, § 9 rights
Whether suppression was required given the above	State primarily argued abandonment (not search lawfulness) so evidence was admissible	Evidence obtained by unlawful warrantless search of property in which Bunch retained constitutional interests must be suppressed	Trial court erred in denying suppression; judgment reversed and case remanded

State v. Pidcock, 306 Or 335 (describing the lost-property exception to the warrant requirement)
State v. Woods, 288 Or App 47 (explaining subjective and objective components of a lost-property belief)
State v. Tanner, 304 Or 312 (suppression requires actual violation of Article I, § 9 privacy/possessory rights)
State v. Morton, 326 Or 466 (possession immediately before a search creates a protected possessory interest)
State v. Brown, 348 Or 293 (abandonment requires an unequivocal relinquishment of constitutionally protected interests)
State v. Ipsen, 288 Or App 395 (nonexhaustive factors for assessing abandonment under the totality of circumstances)