307 P.3d 518
Or. Ct. App.2013Background
- Police conducted two controlled buys of methamphetamine from Sercombe (defendant); surveillance identified his Ford Ranger pickup and that he often pulled an enclosed trailer for his landscaping business.
- On April 13, officers observed a passenger hand meth to an informant after defendant arrived in the truck (no trailer attached); officers did not arrest then to continue investigation.
- On April 22, officers saw defendant drive into a restaurant parking lot with a large enclosed trailer attached; defendant walked into the restaurant and was arrested ~100 feet from the truck; two passengers were also arrested.
- Defendant was searched (no meth found); 30–40 minutes after arrest, officers searched the truck and attached trailer without a warrant and found methamphetamine in the trailer.
- Defendant moved to suppress under Article I, §9 (Oregon Constitution) arguing the automobile exception did not apply because (1) police did not "encounter" a mobile vehicle (they encountered it after arrest when it was parked and unoccupied) and (2) a trailer is not a motor vehicle; trial court granted suppression.
- State appealed, arguing the truck was mobile when police encountered it (per Meharry and Kurokawa-Lasciak), the trailer is part of the vehicle for mobility purposes, and probable cause developed after arrest justified the subsequent search under the automobile exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the automobile exception applies when police observed the vehicle arrive and park but arrested the driver later | Vehicle was mobile when police first encountered it driving into the lot; encounter occurred then; exception applies | "Encounter" occurred only at the lawful arrest/stop (when vehicle was parked and unoccupied), so no mobility exigency | Held for state: encounter occurred when officers saw the truck drive into the lot; mobility requirement satisfied |
| Whether an attached trailer falls within the automobile exception | Trailer is functionally part of the mobile vehicle; mobility exigency extends to attached containers | Trailer is not a motor vehicle; Brown limited exception to motor vehicles only | Held for state: mobility rationale applies equally to an attached trailer; search permitted |
| Whether probable cause must exist at the moment of the initial encounter or may develop after encounter and before search | Probable cause can be developed after encounter (e.g., after arrest/interactions); exception still applies | Probable cause must exist at the time police first encountered the mobile vehicle | Held for state: probable cause may develop after the encounter; Meharry supports post-encounter development of probable cause |
| Whether the automobile exception is invalid under the state constitution and requires case-specific exigency analysis | State relies on binding Supreme Court precedent; exception stands | Argues exception is constitutionally invalid and should be narrowed | Held for state: court declines to overrule or narrow Supreme Court precedent; exception remains valid |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Brown, 301 Or. 268 (establishes automobile exception requires vehicle be mobile when stopped and probable cause for search)
- State v. Kock, 302 Or. 29 (holds vehicles parked, immobile, and unoccupied when first encountered are outside the exception absent other exigencies)
- State v. Meharry, 342 Or. 173 (holds an officer "encountered" a vehicle when he saw it driving in connection with suspected crime; mobility and exigency can justify warrantless search)
- State v. Kurokawa-Lasciak, 351 Or. 179 (frames mobility requirement: vehicle must be mobile when police "encounter" it in connection with a crime)
- Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (original federal rationale for vehicle exception based on mobility exigency)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (allows search of containers within vehicles under automobile exception)