State v. Currin, 311 P.3d 903

Background

Hermiston Police Officer Roberts saw a man enter an apartment in a neighborhood known for drug activity; defendant was in a parked pickup truck associated with persons Roberts had previously arrested for methamphetamine offenses.
Roberts questioned defendant, ran records checks (linking the truck to a person previously tied to meth), found an outstanding Washington warrant, and placed defendant under arrest.
As Roberts opened the truck and asked defendant to step out, he observed her holding a plain white envelope; she began to put it in her purse, paused, and then tossed it to the passenger-floor.
Roberts seized the envelope, felt a paperfold inside (which he associated with drug packaging), read Miranda warnings, and asked its contents; defendant admitted it contained a methamphetamine form called “annie.” Testing confirmed methamphetamine.
Defendant moved to suppress the envelope’s contents and her statements as fruits of an unlawful warrantless seizure; the trial court denied suppression, concluding probable cause justified seizure under the plain-view doctrine.
On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed, holding Roberts lacked objectively reasonable probable cause to believe a plain white envelope contained contraband and that both the physical evidence and statements should have been suppressed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer had probable cause to seize the plain white envelope under the plain-view doctrine	Seizure lawful: officer was lawfully at scene, observed furtive conduct and a paperfold inside the envelope suggesting drug packaging, so probable cause existed	No probable cause: a plain white envelope is not intrinsically indicative of drugs; furtive movement and desire to avoid inspection cannot alone establish probable cause	No — seizure not supported by probable cause; envelope not `immediately apparent` contraband
Whether evidence seized from envelope must be suppressed as fruit of unlawful seizure	State did not attempt on appeal to justify by other exceptions; argued plain-view was sufficient	Argued suppression required because seizure unlawful and statements flowed from it	Yes — contents suppressed; state failed to rebut causal nexus between illegality and evidence
Whether defendant’s statements after Miranda should be suppressed	Statements admissible because Miranda warnings were given and defendant confessed voluntarily	Statements were product of the unlawful seizure and not sufficiently attenuated by Miranda warnings	Suppressed — minimal factual nexus established and state did not show attenuation
Whether other exceptions (vehicle exception/search-incident-to-arrest) justified seizure	State did not pursue those exceptions on appeal	Defendant contended no exigency and not within search-incident-to-arrest limits	Not addressed on appeal; court confined review to Oregon Article I, §9 plain-view analysis

Key Cases Cited

State v. Owens, 302 Or. 196 (discusses probable-cause/plain-view in arrest context)
State v. Herbert, 302 Or. 237 (upheld seizure of a small paperfold based on attendant circumstances and officer experience)
State v. Lavender, 93 Or. App. 361 (closing or protecting a purse cannot alone supply probable cause)
State v. Massey, 90 Or. App. 95 (seizure justified where container’s contents and concealment made contraband apparent)
State v. Walker, 173 Or. App. 46 (container’s nature may negate inference of drug content)
State v. Carter, 200 Or. App. 262 (plain-view requires probable cause that item is contraband)
Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 ("immediately apparent" in plain-view equated to probable cause standard)
State v. Hall, 339 Or. 7 (defendant must establish factual nexus between illegality and contested evidence)
State v. Nell, 237 Or. App. 331 (Miranda warnings do not automatically attenuate statements from prior unlawful seizure)