State v. Cleland, 410 P.3d 386

Defendant was arrested in Salem for menacing; police opened his backpack and, pursuant to the department's inventory policy, opened a small hard nylon case found inside. Methamphetamine was discovered in the case.
Defendant moved to suppress the methamphetamine as the product of an unlawful search; the trial court denied the motion and convicted him of possession and menacing.
The relevant portion of the Salem Police inventory policy required opening closed containers designed for holding currency, coins, and/or other valuables and listed examples (purses, wallets, fanny packs, backpacks, briefcases). "Valuables" was not defined.
Officer Adams testified the black case looked like a container for a small electronic device (external hard drive or handheld game). There is no dispute the officer could lawfully open the backpack itself.
On appeal the defendant argued (1) the search was not authorized by the department policy and thus violated Article I, § 9 of the Oregon Constitution, and (2) the policy is unconstitutionally overbroad because it vests officers impermissible discretion to open closed containers.
The court affirmed: it held a case for small electronics falls within the policy's scope of "other valuables," and prior Oregon decisions limit the overbreadth challenge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether opening the hard-case was authorized by the Salem Police inventory policy	Policy requires opening closed containers designed for valuables; the case appeared designed for small electronics, which are valuables	Policy does not explicitly list electronics cases; container wasn't listed, so opening exceeded policy	Held: Authorized — cases for small electronics fall within "other valuables" and the search complied with policy
Whether the inventory policy is unconstitutionally overbroad under Article I, § 9 because it vests officers undue discretion	Police: policy constrains discretion by requiring opening containers objectively designed or likely to contain valuables; precedents uphold such limits	Defendant: lack of definition of "valuables" grants officers subjective discretion and invites arbitrary searches	Held: Not overbroad — court relied on Oregon precedent holding requirement to open containers designed or objectively likely to contain valuables sufficiently constrains discretion

State v. Johnson, 153 Or. App. 535 (Or. Ct. App.) (upholding inventory search of briefcase as typically holding valuables)
State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1 (Or. 1984) (Article I, § 9 requires inventories pursuant to properly authorized administrative programs without officer discretion)
State v. Mundt/Fincher, 98 Or. App. 407 (Or. Ct. App.) (inventory policy requiring accounting of cash and items of value in wallets/purses upheld)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (inventory-search exception grounded in protection of owner's property, police against claims, and officer safety)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1987) (inventory searches reasonable if administered according to reasonable regulations in good faith)
Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1990) (policies may permissibly open all, none, or some containers; discretion must be tied to inventory purposes)
State v. Keller, 265 Or. 622 (Or. 1973) (discussing limits on inventory searches and closed containers)
State v. Ciancanelli, 339 Or. 282 (Or. 2005) (stare decisis standard for abandoning precedent)