State v. Fulmer, 460 P.3d 486

Hillsboro officers stopped Fulmer for expired registration; she lacked a valid license and insurance and the vehicle was to be impounded.
Officers told Fulmer the car would be impounded and to step out; she exited with phone and cigarettes but left her purse on the passenger seat.
Hillsboro policy required inventories of personal property and treated purses as containers subject to inventory; the policy did not require officers to notify occupants they could remove belongings.
A second officer began an inventory by opening Fulmer’s purse and found methamphetamine and syringes; Fulmer was charged with possession.
Trial court denied suppression relying on the inventory exception from State v. Atkinson; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Oregon Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court held that conducting an inventory without informing a present, competent occupant that she may retrieve readily removable personal items violates Article I, §9; the conviction was reversed and the case remanded.

Issue	State's Argument	Fulmer's Argument	Held
Whether an inventory search of an impounded vehicle conducted without telling a present occupant she may remove readily retrievable personal items complies with Article I, §9	Not required by Article I, §9; compliance with a properly authorized, non-discretionary inventory policy (Atkinson) is sufficient	Inventory exception serves property-protection and false-claim purposes and those aims require giving present occupants the opportunity to remove belongings before inventory	Court held notice is required when occupant is present and competent; inventory without such notice violated Article I, §9; evidence suppressed and conviction reversed
Whether directing Fulmer to exit and informing her of impoundment constituted a seizure of her purse distinct from the administrative seizure of the vehicle	No unlawful interference occurred; Court of Appeals found no seizure of the purse	The instruction to exit and the impending inventory could have unlawfully interfered with her right to remove belongings, constituting a seizure	Supreme Court did not decide this alternative seizure argument because it resolved the case on the notice requirement

South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (recognized federal inventory exception where inventories follow standardized police procedures)
State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1 (1984) (Oregon adopted inventory exception and set minimum requirements for a lawful administrative inventory)
State v. Perry, 298 Or. 21 (1984) (inventory scope must be narrower in noncriminal/nonemergency contexts; greater privacy expectations apply)
State v. Connally, 339 Or. 583 (2005) (inventory purpose is civil/administrative—not to discover evidence of crime; scope tied to those purposes)
State v. Arreola-Botello, 365 Or. 695 (2019) (limits on police authority during noncriminal traffic stops and on investigative actions beyond the stop’s justification)