State v. Cordova
250 Or. App. 397
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant was convicted after a stipulated-facts trial of delivery of methamphetamine (Count 1), possession of methamphetamine (Count 2), felon in possession of a firearm (Count 3), and attempting to elude a police officer (Count 4).
- Defendant moved to suppress fruits of a car inventory search conducted under General Order 66.2.1.
- Officer opened a safe found in a backpack during the inventory, revealing handgun, scales, baggies, cutting agent, and meth.
- The inventory policy required opening all closed containers that could contain valuables, including a list of examples like purses, backpacks, and gun cases.
- The trial court denied suppression; on appeal, the court held the policy overbroad and that evidence from the inventory was unlawfully obtained; counts 1–3 were reversed and remanded for resentencing, while Count 4 (unrelated evidence) was affirmed.
- Convictions on Counts 1–3 reversed and remanded for resentencing; Count 4 affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is General Order 66.2.1 overbroad under Article I, section 9? | State argues policy is limited by examples and purpose to protect property. | Defendant contends policy forces opening all closed containers, including those unlikely to hold valuables. | Yes, overbroad; opening all closed containers is unconstitutional. |
| Does the policy authorize opening all closed containers regardless of likelihood of valuables? | State maintains reasonable scope due to purpose and examples. | Defendant maintains literal broad sweep of 'could contain valuables' is impermissible. | Yes, policy cannot be read to authorize universal inspection. |
| Were the meth and firearm evidence obtained through an unlawful search? | Inventory policy valid, thus search lawful. | Evidence obtained from unlawful search must be suppressed. | Yes; suppression required for Counts 1 and 2 (and Count 3). |
| What is the remedy for the overbroad inventory policy? | N/A | N/A | Convictions based on evidence from the unlawful search are reversed and remanded; remaining conviction addressed separately. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 227 Or App 453, 206 P3d 269 (2009) (inventory must be pursuant to a properly authorized program; cannot generally authorize opening closed containers)
- State v. Eldridge, 207 Or App 337, 142 P3d 82 (2006) (overbreadth concerns in inventory policies; must limit to valuables-related containers)
- State v. Kay, 227 Or App 359, 206 P3d 208 (2009) (open-ended inventory sweep is overbroad unless limited to valuables)
- State v. Nordloh, 208 Or App 309, 312, 144 P3d 1013 (2006) (policy must avoid discretion; generally cannot open all closed containers)
- State v. Keady, 236 Or App 530, 237 P3d 885 (2010) (illustrates permissible scope: containers designed to hold valuables or likely to contain them)
- State v. Guerrero, 214 Or App 14, 162 P3d 1048 (2007) (inventory may authorize opening containers likely to contain valuables)
- State v. Swanson, 187 Or App 477, 68 P3d 265 (2003) (example of narrowing inventory discretion to avoid overbroad searches)