State v. Fulmer, 437 P.3d 257

Officer stopped defendant for expired registration; defendant admitted suspended license and no insurance; officer decided to impound the car.
Officer asked defendant to step out (conversational tone); she exited, took phone and cigarettes, left her purse on the passenger seat, and did not ask to retrieve property.
Hillsboro Police inventory policy treated purses and wallets as items to be opened and inventoried; Officer Weed opened the purse/wallet during inventory and discovered methamphetamine and needles.
Defendant was arrested, moved to suppress evidence arguing Article I, § 9 of the Oregon Constitution was violated, and the trial court denied suppression; defendant appealed.
On appeal defendant advanced two theories: (1) officers had an affirmative constitutional duty to ask if she wanted to remove items before impoundment; and (2) under the totality of the circumstances a reasonable person would have believed she could not retrieve items, so the purse was unlawfully seized.
The court affirmed: the stop, impoundment, and inventory policy complied with precedent; no constitutional violation occurred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (defendant)	Defendant's Argument (state)	Held
Whether officers are constitutionally required to ask an on‑scene, non‑arrested vehicle owner if they want to remove personal items before an inventory/impoundment	Police must affirmatively ask and give a reasonable opportunity to remove items; otherwise inventory is unreasonable under Article I, § 9	No constitutional duty to give that advisement; following a lawful inventory policy suffices	Rejected defendant's proposed per se rule; Article I, § 9 does not require an affirmative advisement in every case when the owner is present and not under arrest
Whether officers’ conduct in asking defendant to exit caused an independent seizure of the purse (object) because a reasonable person would believe they could not retrieve items	Under the circumstances a reasonable person would believe they could not reach into the car to retrieve property, so the purse was unlawfully seized	Officers merely asked defendant to step out in a conversational tone, did not prevent retrieval, and complied with a non‑discretionary policy; no significant interference with possessory interests occurred	Rejected; factual findings support that no seizure of the purse occurred and the inventory search was constitutional

State v. Atkinson, 298 Or. 1 (Or. 1984) (outlines purposes justifying vehicle inventories and three conditions for inventory policies to avoid being inherently "unreasonable")
State v. Juarez‑Godinez, 326 Or. 1 (Or. 1997) (defines "seizure" of property as a significant interference with possessory interests and frames objective‑reasonable test)
State v. Anderson, 354 Or. 440 (Or. 2013) (officer conduct must add to inherent pressures to effectuate a seizure of a person)
State v. Rodgers/Kirkeby, 347 Or. 610 (Or. 2010) (discusses scope of temporary seizure during traffic stop)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1976) (Supreme Court recognition of inventory searches as an exception to warrant requirement for noninvestigatory purposes)
State v. Dimmick, 248 Or. App. 167 (Or. Ct. App. 2012) (officer unlawfully seized property when prevented defendant from taking items during impoundment)